An Investigation into the Relative Effectiveness of

0 downloads 0 Views 5MB Size Report
teaching of grammar will not necessarily guarantee that the learners will use the ..... The majority of the studies are undertaken among the students at advanced ...
An Investigation into the Relative Effectiveness of DataDriven Learning (DDL) with Integration into PPP and III

submitted by Pramod Kumar Sah

supervised by Dr Tania Horak

Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements of the MA in TESOL with Applied Linguistics

School of Languages and International Studies University of Central Lancashire

September 2014

Acknowledgements The current study was accomplished with the constant advice, encouragement and guidance of my tutors at University of Central Lancashire (UCLan). First and foremost, I would like to thank the MA TESOL faculty for all their support. Secondly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Dr Tania Horak for her kind support and for guiding me all along with her constructive comments and feedback on this study. I owe a sincere debt to the teaching and administrative staff at the Language Academy, UCLan for allowing me to undertake this study on their students and accommodating classes in accordance. Special thanks go to the participants who agreed to take part in this study and helped this study to succeed. At the same time, I cannot forget to acknowledge the ideas that I utilized from the books, journals, articles, etc. in this study. Last but not least, I am grateful to my parents who made my dream of pursuing postgraduate study in the UK come true, and to my friends and colleagues for their moral support.

Page 2 of 104

Contents

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................... 5 List of Diagrams .............................................................................................................. 6 Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 8 1.1

Brief Overview........................................................................................................... 8

1.2

Current Research .................................................................................................... 10

1.2.1

Purposes and Aims .......................................................................................... 10

1.2.2 Research Questions................................................................................................ 10 1.3

Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 12

Chapter 2: Literature Review ..........................................................................................14 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Grammar in English Language Teaching ....................................................................... 15 2.2.1 Argument against Grammar Teaching ................................................................... 16 2.2.2 Argument for Grammar Teaching .......................................................................... 16 2.2.3 Principles for Grammar Teaching........................................................................... 17 2.2.4 Grammar in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) ................................................ 23 2.3 Approaches to Grammar Teaching ............................................................................... 24 2.4 Data-Driven Learning .................................................................................................... 26 2.4.1 Definition................................................................................................................ 26 2.4.2 Empirical Research: DDL and Language Learning .................................................. 27 2.5 Scope of the Current Study ........................................................................................... 29 2.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................32 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 Sample and the Setting ................................................................................................. 32 3.3 Instruments of Data Collection ..................................................................................... 33 3.3.1 Tests ....................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.2 Focus-group ........................................................................................................... 35 3.4 Process of Data Collection ............................................................................................ 35 Page 3 of 104

3.4.1 The Interventions ................................................................................................... 36 3.4.2 Written Discourse Markers as Input ...................................................................... 40 3.4.3 The Nature of Concordance Data .............................................................................. 40 3.5 Methods of Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 41 3.6 Ethical Issues ................................................................................................................. 42 3.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 42 Chapter 4: Results and Findings ......................................................................................44 4.1

Data Analysis and Results ....................................................................................... 44

4.1.1 Data from the Tests................................................................................................ 44 4.1.2 Data from the focus group ..................................................................................... 48 4.2 Findings ......................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 5: Discussions and Limitations ..........................................................................55 5.1 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 55 5.2 Limitations..................................................................................................................... 57 Chapter 6: Conclusions ..................................................................................................59 References .....................................................................................................................62 Appendices ....................................................................................................................73 Appendix 1: Test Questions ................................................................................................ 73 Appendix: 2: Focus Group Questions.................................................................................. 76 Appendix 3: PowerPoint Slides for the Input Sessions ....................................................... 77 Appendix 4: Sample Concordance Data .............................................................................. 85 Appendix 5: Consent Forms ................................................................................................ 86 Appendix 6: Marked Test Papers ....................................................................................... 88 Appendix 7: Focus Group Transcript ................................................................................. 100

Page 4 of 104

List of Tables Table 1: Classification of Discourse Markers ......................................................................... 40 Table 2: Test results ................................................................................................................ 44 Table 3: Performance of the experimental group-1 in pre and post-tests ............................... 45 Table 4: Performance of the experimental group-2 in pre and post-tests ............................... 45 Table 5: Performance of the experimental group-1 in pre-test and delayed post-tests ........... 46 Table 6: Performance of the experimental group-2 in pre-test and delayed post-tests ........... 46 Table 7: Performance of the experimental group-1 in post-test and delayed post-tests.......... 47 Table 8: Performance of the experimental group-2 in post and delayed post-tests ................ 47 Table 9: Issue 1: Overall impression towards DDL ................................................................ 48 Table 10: Issue 2: Learners‟ autonomy ................................................................................... 49 Table 11: Issue 3: Learning difficulties .................................................................................. 50 Table 12: Issue 4: Need of teachers‟ support .......................................................................... 50 Table 13: Issue 5: Opportunity for practice and production ................................................... 51 Table 14: Issue 6 Like/dislike this approach ........................................................................... 51

Page 5 of 104

List of Diagrams

Diagram 1: Intervention 1: Data-driven Learning (DDL) with Present-Practice- Produce (PPP)................................................................................................................... 37 Diagram 2: Intervention 2: Data-driven Learning (DDL) with Illustration, Interaction, Induction (III) ..................................................................................................... 38

Page 6 of 104

Abstract The idea of grammar teaching and learning using concordance data by focusing on “learners‟ discovery of patterns” in a target language was suggested in the 1980‟s. Despite a considerable amount of research during the subsequent decades to explore these ideas further, there is very little evidence of the utilization of corpus-based grammar teaching in EFL/ESL classrooms (Wilson, 2013). One of these corpus-based approaches, Data-Driven Learning (DDL) has also failed to become established owing to the lack of supporting materials and a methodology for the application of DDL (Wilson, 2013). Therefore, this mixed methods classroom investigation was undertaken to ascertain the relative effectiveness of DDL with integration into Present-Practice-Produce (PPP) and Illustration-Interaction-Induction (III) while teaching written discourse markers to EAP students in the UK. As a consequence, two interventions were developed: one included DDL with PPP that focused on the use of practice and another included DDL with III, which focused on consciousness-raising. Twenty presessional students at CEFR B1 level participated in this study and they were divided into two experimental groups. Each of them received one of the interventions for three weeks. The analysis of the pre-, post- and delayed post-tests indicated that DDL with III was significantly more effective than DDL with PPP. Qualitative results, in addition, showed the participants‟ positive attitudes towards DDL in spite of some problems they faced. They struggled to comprehend many of the difficult words and complex structures used in the concordance data, which by and large seemed to demotivate them. This suggests a need to pre-edit the concordance data before hand for lower level learners. The evidence also suggested the need for teachers‟ explanation of the patterns discovered through DDL to assure their discovery from the risk of overgeneralization.

Page 7 of 104

Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter aims to define the brief background of the study and to present the project. It also states the purposes, methods and rational of the study in brief.

1.1 Brief Overview Grammar teaching is still a controversial issue in the field of second or foreign language teaching (Barnard and Scampton, 2008).It has been of great interest to researchers and teachers to investigate if grammar is worth teaching to ( English as a Second Language/ English as a Foreign Language) ESL/EFL learners. Some applied linguists, such as Cown (2009), Thornbury (1999) and Ellis (2002, 2006, 2008) advocate teaching grammar, where as Krashen and Terrel (1983) along some other linguists find grammar teaching of little or no importance in second language acquisition. Despite having negative views towards grammar teaching, there is evidence that (Borg & Bums, 2008; Nassaji & Fotos, 2010; Rose & O‟Neill, 1999; Ellis, 2010), and it is widely accepted that, grammar teaching helps in second or foreign language acquisition. However, finding an effective approach and method is another issue in grammar teaching. For the teaching of ESL/EFL grammar, different methodologies came into practice and were followed and rejected over time but none of them seems to have been completely satisfactory. Nevertheless, different methodologies have helped in different teaching and learning situations. A particular method may not be effective in every context (Prabhu, 1990) nor can it satisfy every need of the learners. The literature on grammar teaching suggests some principles that might be relevant and taken into account while designing grammar lessons (Ellis, 2008), such as „consciousness-raising‟ (Ellis, 1993), „noticing‟ (Schmidt, 1999), „authentic data‟ (McCrthy and Carter, 1995), „Form-focused instruction‟, „practice and opportunity for production‟ (Ellis, 2008), and „learners as researchers‟ (John, 1990). Nonetheless, all the existing methodologies are Page 8 of 104

criticised for missing one or another principle(s). For example, Present-Practice-Produce (PPP) has been criticised for being theoretically, rather than practically, grounded (Lewis, 1993), and for not seeming to incorporate the principles such as learners‟ autonomy, noticing, etc. On the other hand, Illustration- Interaction- Induction (III), which came into existence in opposition to PPP (McCarthy & Carter, 1995), seems to ignore the opportunity for practice. Therefore, a number of studies are still in progress seeking better approaches to grammar teaching and learning. One of the movements in terms of finding a better approach to grammar teaching in the 1980‟s was the suggestion for „discovery learning‟ (Lewis, 1986). Lewis suggested that the learning, which comes from self-discovery, is comparatively more firmly fixed in our minds than that from teacher driven learning. The incorporation of discovery learning and the contemporary revolution of corpus based teaching, Tim John (1991, p. 2) suggested „DataDriven Learning‟ (DDL) as an approach to teaching and learning grammar. In DDL, the focus was shifted from deductive to inductive learning, and „noticing‟ (Schmidt, 1990) of, and consciousness-raising from, corpus data was taken on in the form of concordance citations (Johns, 1991) as language input and self-discovery of grammar by learners (O‟Keeffe et al,, 2007; Mukherjee, 2008). A number of corpus-based studies have been undertaken, and yet DDL has not been assimilated into mainstream teaching practices. One of the reasons for the failure of DDL‟s establishment is the lack of supporting teaching materials and a suitable methodology for the application of DDL (Wilson, 2013). Secondly, Tim Johns (1991) himself had doubts as to whether DDL could be effective on its own and has further suggested investigating the method(s) that can be integrated with DDL. Furthermore, most studies to date have targeted students at tertiary education but very limited in EAP contexts (see, Boulton, 2008; Cheng et al, 2003; Passapong, 2002; Todd, 2011; Gotz, 2012; Breyer, 2001). Similarly, to my knowledge, there has not been any study undertaken to integrate DDL with any other methods. Page 9 of 104

The current study involved a group of EAP students taking a pre-sessional course at University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), UK. The major focus of this study was to ascertain the relative effectiveness of DDL with integration into PPP and III. In PPP, new language is presented to the learners, which they practice through controlled and accurate drilling and then they produce their own utterances based on the given patterns. In III, on the other hand, students are provided with an illustration of language and they interact with it before becoming aware of how the language works, therefore the induction of the discovered patterns takes place through illustration and interaction. 30 EAP students were equally assigned to two experimental groups and each group was exposed to an intervention. Pre-test, post-test and delayed-post tests were given to the students, the scores of which were used to determine the effectiveness of each intervention and to compare the relative effectiveness of both interventions. Similarly, a focus group was conducted to delve into the learners‟ attitudes towards DDL and other aspects of the interventions, such as the need for practice, teachers‟ assistance and learning difficulties and problems.

1.2 Current Research 1.2.1 Purposes and Aims

The study aims to investigate the effectiveness of Data-Driven Learning (DDL) and to suggest a more effective method that can better be integrated with DDL while teaching written discourse markers to pre-sessional students in the UK universities. 1.2.2 Research Questions

RQ 1: Is DDL an effective approach for teaching written Discourse Markers to L2 learners of English in an EAP context? Using DDL or corpus-based activities in second language classroom is not a new practice, however, empirical studies to investigate classroom benefits are still limited (Johansson, Page 10 of 104

2009). There have been a number of empirical studies to ensure the effectiveness of different approaches to teaching grammar. Among those approaches, DDL seems to have comparatively received less attention, however, some studies such as Yoon and Hirvela (2004), Boulton (2008a and 2009a), Chujo et al (2012) and Tyna (2012) have been undertaken to discover the effectiveness of DDL in different contexts. The majority of the studies have been conducted in monolingual settings and have found it as an effective approach (Guan, 2013; Mull, 2013). On the contrary, the present study delves into the effectiveness of DDL in a multilingual setting. Additionally, the study is performed on second language learners of English in an EAP setting in the UK. RQ 2: What is the relative effectiveness of DDL with Present-Practice-Produce (PPP) and DDL with Illustration- Interaction- induction (III) for the acquisition of written Discourse Markers? DDL is often criticized for not being a complete approach in itself; therefore this has to be integrated with some other methods (Boulton, 2010). Johns himself in the introductory paper on DDL seems to have doubt whether DDL can be effective on its own, as a result he questions, “Can the new approach (DDL) be integrated with older and more familiar methods?” (1991, p. 3). Similarly, Johns has not given any concrete definition of DDL, nor has he outlined activities for DDL. The fact demands the integration of DDL with any other methods. Consequently, I have developed two different interventions: „DDL with an older method, Present-Practice-Produce (PPP)‟ and „DDL with a newer method Illustrate-InteractionInduction (III)‟. The first intervention DDL with PPP includes the opportunity for practice and production along with teachers‟ explanation of patterns whereas DDL with III focuses on noticing and consciousness-raising. PPP is chosen as a method for integration here to examine the part „practice‟ plays in grammar learning and students‟ preference for teachers‟ Page 11 of 104

explaining patterns for them. In contrast, III neither includes the opportunity for practice nor the teachers‟ explanation of patterns, but it focuses on consciousness-raising. Therefore, the study has attempted to find out the relative effectiveness of DDL with the integration of these two different methods. RQ 3: What might be the problems of implementing DDL in this setting? Studies in different settings have experienced different problems while implementing DDL. For example, Wilson (2013) found DDL as an unsuitable approach for lower level learners. Similarly, students, in the majority of cases, prefer the teacher to teach about a language and tell them the rules or patterns rather than researching themselves (Chujo, et al., 2012). In the new context, when the students encounter a different approach in which they are not given instruction on the language, but they are asked to learn all by themselves, there might take place some problems. Thus, there is a possibility that some problems might be felt while implementing DDL in this setting.

1.3 Conclusions Teaching of grammar is a controversial issue not only in General English teaching but also in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) – and therefore, studies are in progress to suggest an effective approach in a particular context. The present research is also an investigation into the relative effectiveness of DDL with PPP and III while teaching written discourse markers to EAP students in the UK. The following chapter will define and explore the key concepts related to the study, and will show the research gap and the relevance of this study. Chapter three, i. e. methodology will describe the nature of subjects and the setting. It will also describe the nature of research instruments, which will be followed by the portrayal of the method of data collection and analysis. Similarly, chapter four will outline the presentation, analysis and discussion of the results of the study and chapter five will mention the

Page 12 of 104

limitations and suggestion for further study along with pedagogical implications of results. Finally, chapter six will be a conclusion of the current study.

Page 13 of 104

Chapter 2: Literature Review The aim of this chapter is to define and explore key concepts related to this study. It begins with an introduction of the core ideas and aspects of teaching grammar that have been put forward, moving later to outlining the need for grammar in English for Specific Purposes (EAP) lessons and then looking at different approaches to teaching grammar. A distinct approach to grammar teaching, Data-Driven Learning (DDL), will furthermore be discussed in relation to studies to discern its effectiveness in teaching English as a second/foreign language.

2.1 Introduction The teaching of grammar in second/foreign language education is still a controversial issue; however, it seems to exist in most cases. Many studies have been done in this field to investigate this contradiction, but we can still find the debate in progress. Krashen‟s natural acquisition hypothesis (1981) believes in „unconscious acquisition‟, so it rejects the need for grammar instruction. On the contrary, the majority of studies find consciousness-raising to be a prominent tool for language learning (Smith, 1981; Ruthenford, 1987; Ellis, 2002; Mohamed, 2004) that advocates the teaching of grammar. Consequently, the majority of recent SLA research has directed grammar teaching towards „consciousness-raising practices as opposed to grammar production activities‟ (Larsen-Freeman (2003, p.91). Similarly, Oldin (1994, p. 124) states “several research findings cast doubt on strong no-grammar position and lead to a reconsideration of the possible roles of grammar instruction.” As a result, the problem may not be whether or not to teach grammar, but what to incorporate in grammar teaching and how to supply input to learners. A few aspects are seen as worth incorporating in grammar teaching, such as „noticing‟, „consciousness-raising tasks‟, „input processing‟, „production‟, „instructional conversation‟ Page 14 of 104

(Tharp and Gallimore, 1988), use of „authentic data‟ and „learners‟ autonomy‟ (Ellis, 2008). Here, it seems relevant to seek a suitable approach that can best integrate all these aspects for grammar teaching. Incorporating factors, like noticing, consciousness-raising, providing context for language use, and the need of authentic data, Data-Driven Learning (DDL) seems to be a suitable approach to grammar teaching. Johns and King (1991, p. 3) find DDL to be an approach of grammar teaching that encourages learners‟ own discovery of grammar based on evidence from authentic language use. Additionally, DDL, as noted by Chambers and Kelly (2002 mentioned in O‟Keefe, McCarthy, Carter, 2007, p. 24), brings together constructivists theories of learning, communicative approaches to language teaching and developments within the area of learners‟ autonomy.

2.2 Grammar in English Language Teaching English language teaching professionals are often concerned with the accuracy and precision of language use. It is therefore rather significant that „we should ourselves be so muddled about the meaning of the term grammar‟ (Bright, 1947, p. 173). Bright also believes that there should not be a debate as to whether grammar should or should not be taught. It is the perception of how one defines the term „grammar‟ that is important. If grammar is defined as „a systematic description in technical terms of the make-up of a language‟ (Bright, 1947, p. 173) or as a body of rules that determine if a particular piece of language is right or wrong, teaching of grammar will not necessarily guarantee that the learners will use the language. Therefore, this notion seems to reject the idea of teaching grammar rules or patterns. However, if grammar teaching supplies the working knowledge of the role a particular pattern plays in the communication of meaning, grammar teaching becomes obligatory for second/foreign language teaching. Therefore, it would be wise for a language teacher to have learners focus on patterns that carry their meaning in contexts rather than explaining grammar rules or patterns for them. Page 15 of 104

2.2.1 Argument against Grammar Teaching

In this concern, it seems worth discussing the merits and demerits of grammar teaching. Some researchers tend to support Krashen‟s (1981) idea of no-grammar teaching, who believes that language learning is an unconscious process and comprehensible input is enough for language acquisition. This idea was evidenced from studies on the acquisition of English morphology that particularly concluded that speakers of different L1s acquire English morphemes in a similar order (Bailey, Madden & Krashen, 1974). The findings suggest that second language can be acquired in the same process as the L1, so that it does not require any formal instruction. These researchers proposed that comprehensible input is sufficient to enable learners to use the target language. At the same time, the notion of Chomsky‟s Universal Grammar (UG) and its application to SLA support the fact that the „principles‟ of all existing languages share common pattern. It is, therefore, argued that if UG is accessible to all learners, learning of L2 takes place as a consequence of the interaction between UG principles and input (Cook, 1991 and Schwartz, 1993). As a result, formal instruction was seen of no importance. 2.2.2 Argument for Grammar Teaching

On the contrary, the majority of researchers and applied linguists, such as Ellis (1993, 2006, and 2008), Aarts, Clayton and Wallis (2012), and Cowan (2009) advocate the need of grammar teaching. Against Krashen‟s argument that L1 and L2 acquisition have almost the same process of learning, some linguists such as Ur (1988) outline the distinction between L1 and L2 acquisition. Learners of L1, regardless of natural acquisition, have relatively more time and receive more motivation; and consequently they do not need formal instruction. Contrastively, learners of L2 have limited time and might be less motivated, therefore a formal instruction is likely to be necessary for them (White, 1987). In addition, Batstone

Page 16 of 104

(1994) highlights the importance of grammar teaching as the learners‟ knowledge of the grammatical system might be improved with the conscious focus on grammatical forms and meanings. This idea was further supported by Schmidt (1990 & 2001), Ellis (2001), Ellis, Basturkmen and Loewen (2001), and Nassaji and Fotos (2004) that a conscious attention to form is required in order to understand the patterns of L2. As a result, a number of applied linguists have conviction that there should not be such question so as whether grammar teaching is important, but the focus should be on „what is to be considered as grammar‟, „what needs to be taught‟ and „how‟. 2.2.3 Principles for Grammar Teaching

Since it has been empirically evident that the teaching of L2 grammar is necessary to attain higher level of proficiency in the target language (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004), EFL teachers tend to focus on the SLA principles that need to be considered while selecting a proper approach or designing materials for grammar teaching. Based on the literature on grammar teaching to date, the following are the key principles that can be taken into account in order to determine an approach to grammar teaching. Grammar consciousness-raising Consciousness-raising (CR) is an activity that provides „an effective means of teaching grammar‟ (Mohamed, 2004, p. 229). Ellis defines CR as „a pedagogic activity where the learners are provided with L2 data in some form and required to perform some operation on or with it, the purpose of which is to arrive at an explicit understanding of some linguistic property or properties of the TL‟ (1997, p. 160). This suggests that grammar activities ought to be developed to serve the purpose of helping learners notice and be aware of new language. Additionally Schmidt (1990) suggests that paying attention to language form helps in language acquisition, and consciousness-raising is required, particularly for adults, to Page 17 of 104

acquire „redundant grammatical features‟ (p. 149). Ellis (1993) also claims that learners construct their own grammar through grammar consciousness-raising activities and, as previously mentioned, learning through self-discovery is firmly fixed in the learners‟ mind (Lewis, 1986). It is therefore evidenced that consciousness-raising activities might be essential in grammar teaching. However, „automatic and fluent output processing should not be under full conscious control‟ (Gilakjani & Ahmadi, 2011, p. 440). Focus on Form and Meaning A huge amount of discussion can be seen in SLA on whether the focus should be on „form‟ or „meaning‟. However, Ellis (2008) suggests designing activities that focus on both form and meaning. Tracing back to the history of language teaching, Chomsky‟s „Structural Grammar‟ focused on form whereas Halliday‟s „Functional Grammar‟ focused on meaning; that led researchers to come up with various findings. Nevertheless, it seems that both form and meaning have distinct role to play in language acquisition. Focusing on meaning is primary in language acquisition since language acquisition only takes place when learners are engaged in decoding and encoding information in the context of actual use of language (Prabhu, 1987 and Long, 1996). Focus on form, on the other hand, helps learners notice the linguistic items they need to perform certain speech acts (Schmidt, 2001). Additionally, focus on meaning helps to develop the 'skills needed for fluent communication and the vocabulary and grammar needed to use the language effectively‟ (Ellis, 2008, p. 2) and focus on form develops accuracy to convey that meaning. Therefore, only focusing on either form or meaning develops incomplete acquisition in learners. Grammar teaching materials for EFL/ESL classrooms should be developed in accordance to focus on both form and meaning.

Page 18 of 104

Focus on implicit and explicit knowledge „Implicit knowledge is procedural, is held unconsciously, and can be verbalized only if it is made explicit. [......] Explicit knowledge is conscious and declarative and can be verbalized‟ (Ellis, 2008, p. 2). Similar to the contradiction between form and meaning, many researchers (N. Ellis, 1998; DeKeyser, 1998; Ranalli, 2001; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004) tend to focus and recommend one of either implicit or explicit knowledge being more responsible for language acquisition. However, Ellis recommends directing instruction to focus on developing implicit knowledge while not neglecting explicit knowledge of the target language. Implicit knowledge facilitates communicating fluently in a target language, and therefore should be developed in learners (DeKeyser, 1998). There is, however, conflict in views regarding how implicit knowledge develops. DeKeyser (1998), in this regard, argues that implicit knowledge comes from explicit knowledge when explicit knowledge is automatized through practice. In contrast, N. Ellis (1998) finds implicit knowledge developing naturally, perhaps, as a result of focus on form. Despite the controversy, implicit knowledge helps learners communicate fluently, which comes after the explicit knowledge is automatized. Nevertheless, Krashen (1982) argues that learners can use explicit knowledge only when they monitor their language use. But, this may be only true with the beginners whose knowledge is still at „controlled processing‟ and can expertly be used (Kormos, 1999) after the knowledge is transferred into „automatic processing‟ (McLaughlin, Rossman and McLeod, 1983). To sum up, implicit and explicit knowledge seem complement to each other, and therefore grammar teaching ought to comprise both implicit and explicit knowledge. Opportunities for practice and production

There has also been debate in terms of the opportunity for practice and production. A number of studies (Batstone, 1994; Long, 1991; Long & Robinson, 1998) seem to argue against the

Page 19 of 104

use of „practice‟ in EFL/ESL classrooms. However, those supporting PPP approach (Johns & Carter, 2014) advocate the need for practice in second or foreign language acquisition. Some studies ( VanPatten, 2004; Wong & VanPatten, 2003) do express doubt about the usefulness of practice with a claim that „repetitive output practice‟ (DeKeyser, 2010, p. 156) does not necessarily provide opportunities to practice the target behaviour, however, they do not seem to reject focus on forms. Similarly, others (Long, 1991; Long & Robinson, 1998) go further to reject practice focused on forms. At the same time, Ellis (1993) do not show doubt on practice focused on form but he finds it to be of limited use given that it does not help to acquire new grammar structures, only with automatization of those forms. In other words, some researchers seem to reject the praxis of practice whereas some just show doubt on form focused practice as Ellis (1994) mentions that the results of empirical research are not very encouraging for practice. Nevertheless, Ur (1988) argues that practice transfers the knowledge from short-term memory to long-term memory. Similarly, an array of studies has also confirmed that practice increases fluency and stimulates noticing (Shehadeh, 2002; Swain &Lapkin 1998; DeKeyser 2007, 2010). Therefore, providing opportunities for practice might help learners acquire the target language. Nonetheless, practice in terms of „drill and kill‟ may not be very helpful to acquire proficiency in the target language since „acquisition happens as a by-product of comprehension‟ (VanPatten, 2003, p. 26). In brief, if practice is defined in terms of facilitating the learners with opportunities to comprehend the forms and meanings and to use them frequently until it transfers to long-term memory, the practice might help in acquisition. Moreover, Ellis (2002) has suggested using consciousness-raising activities over practice. However, consciousness-raising seemingly helps learners notice the target language and comprehends the underlying patterns whereas practice might help them internalize the comprehended knowledge into production. Regardless of the fact, it is still a controversy Page 20 of 104

whether a practice plays a significant role in language acquisition. As a consequence, this study has also attempted to investigate if practice after consciousness-raising activity provides extra benefit to learners. Learners as researchers

The idea of language learners to autonomously investigate the structure and usage in a target language is not new. It has been over 30 years since applied linguists started suggesting learner-centred approaches to teaching grammar. However, Tim John used the term „learners as researchers‟ for the first time in 1991. He states that language learners are also researcher workers „whose learning needs to be driven by access to linguistic data‟ (p. 2). Similarly, Wachob (2005) points out that the language learners‟ ultimate goal is to take control of their own learning in order to become autonomous learners. Therefore, learners should be given more freedom to act autonomously (Nazari, 2014). Authentic language data

In teaching and learning of English as a foreign and second language, the use of authentic language data has been debated, especially in terms of underpinning the meaning of „authenticity‟ and the benefits of its use in language learning. However, the empirical evidence suggests the use of authentic language data provides learners with the opportunity to get contact with naturally used language (Underwood, 1989), and empowers teachers and learners (McKnight, 1989), and therefore helps acquire natural language. Additionally, Peacock (1997) points out authentic materials improve students‟ motivation in language learning. Sarignon (1991), similarly, highlights the significance of authentic language data use that provides learners with various sorts of language experiences from different language functions. Therefore, they will be creative to explore language form from the language they are exposed to.

Page 21 of 104

In contrast, there are some linguists who believe that the use of authentic language has more disadvantages. For example, Widdowson (1998) argues that the classroom may not provide contextual condition needed for pragmatic functions and, subsequently it is useless to use authentic language data. Morrison (1989, cited in Peacock, 1997) and William (1983) also view that the use of authentic language data discourages students since they are often too difficult. Maintaining a complete authenticity in learner data is also rare (Granger, 2002). This, however, being the reason, the learners‟ authentic data might be modified and/or simplified to fit with the learners‟ level. Despite the argument against the use of authentic language data, it seems to be helpful for the language learners to discover the pattern and realize the language use in context. As already discussed, it is important to help students be researchers rather than expecting a teacher to explain patterns for them; and for this purpose, it seems beneficial to expose learners to authentic language that they might use to explore the language form as well as use. To sum up the principles for teaching grammar, the discussion above shows that an effective approach to teaching grammar should seemingly be able to incorporate all the principles. Grammar consciousness-raising helps with noticing the language gap whereas a focus has to be made on both form and meaning for effective grammar learning. Similarly, it is suggested that learners should develop explicit knowledge that eventually leads to developing implicit knowledge, and therefore automatises the language production; which seems to be possible with providing learners with the opportunity for language practice and production. More importantly, learners‟ autonomy has to be enhanced by providing them with authentic language data to explore the grammar themselves, rather than passively listening to teachers explaining patterns for them. Despite the fact, there does not seem to be any single approach that has incorporated all these principles. The present study, as a result, has attempted to investigate the effectiveness of Page 22 of 104

DDL with integration into PPP and III in order to include the principles discussed above. Additionally, it is also intended to discover whether practice assists grammar learning, and for this reason, the comparison is made between DDL with PPP, that includes opportunity for practice and production, and DDL with III, that includes the opportunity for consciousnessraising. 2.2.4 Grammar in English for Academic Purposes (EAP)

As the majority of the research has shown high relevance of grammar teaching in second or foreign language learning, it is also likely to be important in English for Specific Purposes (EAP). However, there is a very limited amount of research on the teaching of grammar in EAP contexts. Burgess & Etherington (2002) conducted a survey on attitude of the teachers in the UK towards grammar teaching in EAP context. The survey revealed that the majority of the teachers saw grammar important for their students and favoured discourse-based approaches. Similarly, in 2008, Borg & Burns accomplished a survey on the teachers from America (2.5%), Asia (23.2%), Europe (25.7%) and Australia and New Zealand (46%) to find out their attitude toward teaching grammar, the result of which outlined the teachers‟ support for need for grammar teaching. Barnard & Scampton (2008) also studied on the same issue and concluded with the similar result. Additionally, they attempted to include more aspects of grammar teaching in their study. The teachers in their study mentioned that the students wanted them to present the lesson explicitly and found the role of practice to be effective. They also stated that the students found authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used; however, it was not clear whether the students had difficulty in handling grammar presented within authentic texts.

Page 23 of 104

As a result, the teaching of grammar seems equally valued and demanded in EAP contexts as well. Since these studies, however limited, support the need for grammar teaching and teachers‟ explanation for grammar patterns, the present study has focused on teaching grammar to EAP learners, particularly to suggest an effective approach. This study also looked at the effectiveness of using practice and teachers‟ explanation of grammar patterns given that these issues were raised in Burgess & Etherington (2002), Barnard & Scampton (2008) and Borg & Burns (2008). Nevertheless, the research needs to be focused on finding effective approaches to teaching grammar in EAP.

2.3 Approaches to Grammar Teaching Since the origin of the Grammar Translation (GT) methodology, the deductive approach to teaching grammar has existed and is still dominantly used in many teaching contexts, such as in Nepal, India, and Bangladesh (Sah, 2014). However, low level of achievement in target language acquisition as a product of deductive teaching and „an ever-developing awareness of the complexity of language brought about by corpus linguistics‟ (Ronalli, 2001, p. 2) have shown the problems with deductive approach. Consequently, a number of approaches have been suggested comprising of inductive approach, notice and consciousness-raising and discovery learning. The EFL grammar has been instructed implicitly and explicitly. There are contrastive views towards the choice of one over another in the literature of grammar teaching. Those who supported Krashen‟s idea (i.e., language learning is an unconscious process) find the implicit instruction to be more effective. Some research also concluded that if L2 learners can access and apply the same mental process as that of L1, then L2 acquisition ought to result through comprehensible input and interaction (Schwartz, 1993; Nassaji&Fotos, 2004). In contrast, it has been considerably evident that explicit instruction is significant in order to have learners focus their attention on particular form(s) (Schmidt, 2001; Pienemann, 1988). Similarly, Page 24 of 104

Norris and Ortega defended the importance of explicit instruction by examining the effectiveness of L2 teaching in 49 different studies (2000). There are also studies that have suggested both explicit and implicit instruction to have been effective in different contexts (Tutinis, 2012). In the similar vein, there is evidence showing contradiction between the choice and preference of deductive and inductive approach to teaching grammar. Although both inductive and deductive approach are the type of explicit instruction (Norris & Ortega, 2000; Erlam, 2003; Hulstijn, 2005), they are different in principles. Studied in the effectiveness of deductive and inductive approach have varied results; such as, Herron &Tomasello (1992) found inductive approach to be more effective whereas Robinson (1996), Seliger (1975) Krashen (2002) found deductive to be more effective. At the same time, Abraham (1985), Rosa & O‟Neill (1999) and Shaffer (1989) didn‟t find any distinction between these two approaches. Consequently, both approaches seem to be effective in different contexts depending on the cognitive style of the learners and the language structure presented (Eistenstein, 1987). Moreover, explicit instruction seems to be necessary to develop explicit knowledge (Ellis, 2010). The explicit knowledge further helps to acquire implicit knowledge, following the automatization of that explicit knowledge (McLaughlin, Rossman, McLeod, 1983). Therefore, explicit instruction seems to be important in grammar teaching. Similarly, inductive approach might be more helpful to comprehend the input, particularly as a result of learners‟ own discovery of grammar. However the learners‟ discovery of grammar might not be sufficient for learning, and therefore can be combined with teachers‟ explanation of grammar concepts (Henry, Evelyn & Terence, 2011; Burgess& Elherington, 2012). As a result, inductive approach can be integrated with explicit grammar explanation (Azad, 2013), probably for better acquisition of grammar. However, there are some recent studies that

Page 25 of 104

advocate implicit instruction (Nagaratnam&Al-Mekhlafi, 2012; Ke, 2008). Consequently, both types of instruction might be effective in different EFL situations. This study, therefore, aims to examine whether a particular inductive approach, namely DataDriven Learning (DDL) can be effective while teaching grammar to a particular EAP context. The DDL approach is further integrated into an older approach „PPP‟ and a newer approach „III‟ to ascertain the effectiveness of variables such as practice, consciousness-raising, and explicit grammar instruction.

2.4 Data-Driven Learning In recent decades, a number of researchers (e. g. R. Carter, M. McCarthy, A. Bolton) have brought a paradigm shift in the field of language learning and teaching from electronic corpora. Tim Johns, while promoting language learning through corpus data, proposed DataDriven Learning (DDL) in 1991 although the use of corpus data was early introduced by Sandra McKay (1980), then continued by Ahmad et al (1985) and Johns (1986) himself. 2.4.1 Definition Data-Driven Learning (DDL) is defined as an approach in which „the language learner is also, essentially, a research worker whose learning needs to be driven by access to linguistic data‟ Johns, 1991a, p. 2). Oldin (1994) defines DDL as: an approach to language teaching that gives central importance to developing the learners ability to „puzzle out‟ how the target language operates from examples of authentic usages. The approach is particularly associated with the use of computer concordances in the classroom but can be extended to other situations where the student has to work inductively from authentic data (p. 320).

Page 26 of 104

The main rational of this approach is that „research is too serious to be left to the researchers‟, and therefore, the learners are to be given opportunity to „see the patterning in the target language and to form generalizations to account for that patterning‟ (p. 2). DDL is a type of inductive approach. However, there is a distinctive feature of DDL that the teacher does not know in advance exactly what patterning the students would come up with in DDL. The next distinctive feature of DDL is that the input „cut out the middleman as far as possible and give the learner direct access to the data‟ (p. 30), and hence they can be better learners outside the classroom (Johns, 1991b). He further suggested three steps to plan a DDL based lesson: „identification, classification, and generalization‟ that he again termed as „research, practice, and improvising‟ (Johns, 1997a, p. 101). Nevertheless, these terms are still not been made clear in terms of implementation of DDL (Boulton, 2010). These terms are integrated into the interventions I have developed (see the Diagrams 1 and 2). 2.4.2 Empirical Research: DDL and Language Learning

The recent technology-based approaches to language learning have provided teachers with opportunities to develop learners‟ autonomy (Benson, 2001). DDL, by and large, outlines its key concepts as learner-centred, discovery learning, authentic data, learners‟ autonomy and revolutionaries (Boulton, 2009). Additionally, DDL, as noted by Chambers and Kelly

(2002 mentioned in O‟Keefe, McCarthy, Carter, 2007, p. 24), brings together constructivists theories of learning, communicative approach to language teaching and developments within the area of learners‟ autonomy (Veckers&Ene, 2006). Dehghan&Darasawang (2014), in their study, found the students to have become more independent to use language learning resources after using DDL. Guan (2013) additionally outlines that DDL creates a learning environment that attracts learners‟ attention with emphasis on classroom interaction. . It is therefore necessary to consider activities that develop autonomy among language learners Page 27 of 104

One of the major reasons why DDL has failed to become established is the lack of suitable methodology for the application of DDL (Wilson, 2013). While designing different methodologies for DDL, Kaltenbock &Mechlmauer-Larcher (2005, p. 79) have categorized the methods into two different strata: „learners-corpus-interaction‟ and „teachers-corpusinteraction‟. The former involves learners to browse corpus „much in the same as they would explore an unknown land‟ (Bernadini, 2002, p. 166), where they are the master for all their learning. The later, in contrast, involves teachers editing the concordance data to make sure that the learners arrive at the desired findings and leanings. The later type of methodology, unlike the former one, does not often include using computers in the classroom to access data, instead teachers prepare hand outs containing concordance lines (Bouton, 2010). Moreover, in terms of either using computers in the classrooms or hand outs, Jarris & Szymczyk (2009) conducted a research, the results of which indicated the students liking paper-based materials. In this concern, Gotz (2012) also conducted a research on undergraduate students to find the more effective methods, which resulted that the pre-editing of materials and pre-selection of appropriate corpora make DDL more potential to be very motivating. However, explorative and evaluative studies on using different methods of DDL have rarely been undertaken (Flowerdew, 2009; Breyer, 2011), and therefore a number of researchers, including Tim Johns, cast doubt if DDL can be a complete approach to teaching language in itself or „can the new approach be integrated with older and more familiar methods?‟ (1991a, p. 3). Consequently, this study attempts to integrate DDL with other approaches. The majority of the studies are undertaken among the students at advanced levels of language with a presumption that DDL is not appropriate at lower levels (Boulton, 2010). Johns (1986) himself initially used micro concordance with adult students who were well motivated with prior experience of research methods and had particular interests. However, he later in (1997a) used DDL in a „remedial grammar‟ course for lower-level international students. Page 28 of 104

Similarly, a research conducted by Chujo et al (2012) revealed that DDL can be effective with the beginner level; nevertheless, the learners used bilingual concordance that limited this study. Yoon and Hirvela (2004) also found DDL to be even more effective with intermediate then with advanced learners. Therefore, it is apparent that this can be effective with all levels of learners, yet they ought to be highly motivated. Grounding in the literature above, DDL significantly helps learners develop their autonomy whether they are at lower or higher level of language proficiency. However, it is not a „method‟ in its own right (Boulton, 2010), and therefore needs to be integrated with other established methods. More importantly, this approach seems to be relevant for EAP/ESP learners since the learners in these courses are highly motivated and have particulate interests with some prior knowledge of research methods.

2.5 Scope of the Current Study Since it is evident that grammar teaching significantly helps for second or foreign language acquisition, a large amount of research has been grounded in suggesting effective approaches in respective contexts. No method is a universal method (Prabhu, 1990), and therefore needs to explore an effective approach in a particular context. Additionally, the literature suggests that a best method to teach grammar ought to account for consciousness-raising, inductive and explicit instruction scaffolding, learners as researchers, authentic data, focus on both form and meaning, and might also include opportunity for practice and production. DDL, in this concern, seems to incorporate the majority of these principles except opportunity for practice and production. As a result, the present study has attempted to investigate whether DDL can be an effective approach with integration into other principles, such as practice and production while teaching written discourse markers to EAP students in the UK. DDL might be an effective approach in this contest since EAP learners appear to be highly motivated with particular interests. Page 29 of 104

However, as already mentioned DDL does not seem to have the opportunity for practice and production, which by large are significant for second or foreign language acquisition (Jones & Carter, 2014). Furthermore, Tim Johns and some others (Boulton, 2008, 2010) emit doubt as whether DDL can be best implemented in it, and suggest investigating whether this approach can be integrated with other methods. This being the reason, the current study delves into the relative effectiveness of DDL with two different methods: „PPP‟ and „III‟. The former represents inductive explicit instruction with opportunity for practice and production, whereas the later outlines inductive implicit without any opportunity for practice and production. The findings of this study are believed to suggest EAP teachers a relatively advanced form of DDL that would cut off the shortcomings of DDL, and would eventually add to the literature of corpus based language teaching.

2.6 Conclusions The literature evidently shows that the teaching of grammar helps ELF/ESL learners develop explicit knowledge of the working system of a language, which further drives implicit knowledge for automatic language production. This may equally apply in EAP as well, where the learners prefer explicit explanation of grammar (Barnard &Scampton, 200). However, the problem lies in seeking a suitable approach for a particular context. An approach to be effective for grammar teaching appear to account for SLA principles, such as consciousnessraising, focus on form and meaning, learners as researchers, authentic data. At the same time, learners need to have both explicit and implicit knowledge. However, no single approach seems to have included all the principles. Therefore, this study has attempted to investigate whether DDL, which has been criticised for not being an approach in itself, can be better integrated with PPP or III with regards to including the aforementioned principles of grammar teaching. In the mean time, the literature showed the controversy in terms of Page 30 of 104

opportunity for practice in grammar learning. This study has also made an attempt to investigate if practice has an effective part to play in grammar learning by comparing the relative effectiveness of DDL with integration to PPP ( incorporates opportunity for practice and production) and III (does not have such opportunity).

Page 31 of 104

Chapter 3: Methodology This chapter aims to outline the methodology that has been utilized in this study and to describe the nature of the participants and research setting. The process and nature of research instruments will also be discussed along with the methods of data collection used to compare comparison two interventions. Finally, the chapter will conclude a review of the ethical issues that were taken into account in this research.

3.1 Introduction The current study utilizes mixed methods to explore the relative effectiveness of Data-Driven Learning (DDL) with integration into a relatively older method „PPP‟ and a newer method „III‟, and to determine attitude of the learners towards Data-Driven Learning. In mixed methods, the strengths of one method can be utilized to overcome the weaknesses of other, as data obtained from both methods complement each other (Dornyei, 2007). Mixed methods are also relatively more appropriate as it allows investigators to obtain data on both participants and the broader context of the study. This method, therefore, seems to be relevant given that the present study attempts to obtain quantitative data through tests to measure the learnability of the language through the proposed interventions and qualitative data through a focus group to find out the attitude of the learners towards Data-Driven Learning (DDL). The use of mixed methods, in addition, has helped maintain the validity of this study‟s outcomes through the triangulation of the data obtained from both research instruments.

3.2 Sample and the Setting The subjects of the study were 20 students enrolled at the University of Central Lancashire, in the UK for a pre-sessional course. All the participants were undertaking this course in order to meet the required English language proficiency level required to enter bachelor and master

Page 32 of 104

degree courses. Their current English language proficiency level was B1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). The sample for this study was based on the ‘Representative Sample Paradigm‟ (Perry, 2005); as the sample representing all L2 learners of English doing a pre-sessional course in the UK and the purpose of the study was to generalize the findings to a large group of L2 learners of English doing pre-sessional courses. There were hundreds of students undertaking the course at that time, and therefore a sample had to be chosen from the whole population. Taking variables into consideration, the study followed convenience sampling. The convenience sampling was chosen because of some practical constraints, such as availability at a certain time and accessibility (Dornyei, 2007). For equal possibility of samples to be being selected, I chose two groups from the list of about 8 groups the Language Academy had formed. They had the same language proficiency level as tested by the Academy. The sample size was thought be, 30 participants, but unfortunately data for only 20 participants was recorded since a few of the students could not attend the final input sessions and/or take the post and delayed-post tests. The participants were classified into two experimental groups in order to expose one of the two interventions (See Diagrams 1 and 2).

3.3 Instruments of Data Collection The data was collected through two different instruments: Tests and Focus-group interview. 3.3.1 Tests

The quantitative data was collected through written tests. A pilot test was given before the real test, as „it is extremely unwise to write a test and give it straight to the students, often unforeseen problems arise‟ (Harmer, 1987, p. P. 59). The pilot test did not experience any problem, and therefore real tests were administrated. Pre-tests were given to evaluate the Page 33 of 104

students‟ receptive and productive knowledge in terms of using written discourse markers before the students were treated with the interventions. They were then given post-tests after the interventions were applied to them, and eventually were given delayed post-tests two weeks after the post-tests. The scores of pre-, post- and delayed post-tests were compared to determine the effectiveness of the respective interventions and the mean score of both interventions were further compared to examine the relative effectiveness of both interventions. Each test had two sections representing a receptive and a productive test. The productive test included the items that required the participants to fill in the blanks with the most suitable written discourse markers. Similarly, for the receptive test, the subjects were given multiple choice questions that required the participants to choose suitable discourse markers from the given options. Moreover, while constructing the tests, care was taken to avoid making the test easier to complete by one group than another. Similarly, to avoid any inaccuracy in the test items, the sentences (test items) were taken from the British National Corpus (BNC). The BNC was also used to derive corpus data for the students for the Data-Driven Learning. The test also took validity and reliability into account. Each test included 10 items since FitzGibbon, 1997 (as cited in Cohen, et al, and 2007) believe that longer tests are more reliable, and, as already stated, the test items were taken from the BNC. At the same time, in order to maintain „content validity‟ (Cohen, et al, 2007, p. 162), the test items fairly represented two classes of discourse markers: „for expressing contrast‟ and „for expressing reasons and results‟. The test items were equally divided into these two strata, and this was applied to all tests.

Page 34 of 104

3.3.2 Focus-group

Focus groups are a useful tool to gather data on the attitudes of participants in a research (Cohen et al, 2007), and therefore a focus group of 4 participants was formed to collect data on learners‟ attitudes towards DDL. The choice of taking part in the focus group was entirely up to the participants. A focus group is also significant since a „within-group interaction can yield high-quality data as it can create a synergistic environment that results in a deep and insightful discussion‟ (Dornyei, 2007, p. 144). With regard to the format, the focus group was semi-structured, requiring „the participants to stay on the points‟ (Wisker, 2001, p. 176by focusing on specific problems, and on the other hand, allowing the interviewer to follow questions with additional questions that would probe further. During the focus group sessions, I acted as moderator explaining beforehand what was „expected of participants and will happen to the results‟ (Dawson, 2006, p. 79). I also introduced some key issues that prompted the participants to talk in order to show their attitudes towards DDL. However, some participants commented on unprompted, and made the information even richer. The focus group was electronically recorded for future reference, the knowledge of which was given to the participants beforehand.

3.4 Process of Data Collection The method of data collection was experiment with parallel interviews (Cohen et al, 2007) incorporating experiment with interviews. Johnson and Christensen (2004),as mentioned in Dornyei (2007), point out that we can sometimes enhance an experiment even further by conducting interviews, whether face-to-face or focus group interviews to get at the research participants‟ perspectives and meanings relating to the experimental research findings. The experiment and interviews protocol present both qualitative and quantitative data for this current study. Page 35 of 104

More specifically, the experiment was conducted in order to ascertain the relative effectiveness of Data-Driven Learning (DDL) with integration into „PPP‟ and „III‟ while teaching written discourse markers to L2 learners of English on a pre-sessional course. For this purpose, two interventions were designed: „DDL with PPP‟ and „DDL with III‟. The students were given pre-tests to measure their knowledge of the use of written discourse markers before the interventions were conducted. After the interventions, post-tests were given to the participants to examine their achievement thereby measuring the effectiveness of DDL and the relative effectiveness of its integration into PPP and III. The scores of the pretests were compared to the gain scores of the post-tests. This was followed by delayed posttests to investigate whether the learning lasted for a longer period. Moreover, a focus group of 4 participants were formed representing both interventions. The focus groups revealed data on the students‟ attitude towards the use of Data-Driven Learning while learning written discourse markers. The prime reason for conducting focus-group interviews was to maintain the validity of the experiment, on the one hand, and to yield highquality data, on the other hand. This is because focus group interviews can create a synergistic environment that produces data in a deep and insightful discussion (Dornyei, 2007). In addition, the flexible and information-rich nature of the focus group was significant in the present mixed method research. With regard to the interviews‟ format, they included semi-structured questions that allowed the participants to state their experience beyond the questions of the researcher. A possible obstacle found in focus group interviews is the dominance of one participant over the other participants. To avoid this, I acted as a moderator and controlled the discussion. 3.4.1 The Interventions

The following diagrams demonstrate the interventions

Page 36 of 104

Diagram 1: Intervention 1: Data-Driven Learning (DDL) with Present-PracticeProduce (PPP)

Present

Present (not rules explanation) the context

Classification

Identification

Generalization

Practice

Produce

Practice (through tasks rather than „drills‟

Production

This intervention is an attempt to integrate the DDL approach with an older method „PPP‟. This intervention is designed with the intention to upgrade the DDL approach by integrating „practice‟ and „production‟ into it. Present: This is the first stage where a teacher presents the lesson, but does NOT explain the grammatical rules or patterns as is done in the original form of PPP. He explicitly informs the students what they are going to learn, and then sets a task to motive and to gain their concentration towards the language he plans to introduce. Then, the students are given authentic corpus data (concordance data). They then identify the language through noticing and consciousness-raising activities; classify the language; and finally generalize the patterns of the language. After the students have discovered the new language, the teacher will briefly explain the newly discovered patterns. This is the stage where Data-Driven Learning actually takes place.

Page 37 of 104

Practice: After the patterns are discovered and the teacher has explained them, the students are required to do some practice exercises. „Practice‟, here, does not necessarily mean repetition or drilling as in PPP or Audiolingualism. It might rather refer to activities that encourage learners to use the language they have discovered, such as gap fill exercises or sentence re-writing, etc. in order to drive the information from short-term memory to longterm memory. Produce: This is the final stage where the learners are required to produce their own sentences following the patterns the learners have discovered. This activity also helps to automatise the information for language production with accuracy. Diagram 2: Intervention 2: Data-Driven Learning (DDL) with Illustration, Interaction, Induction (III)

Illustration

Interaction

Induction

Identification

Classification

Generalization

This intervention is an attempt to integrate the DDL approach with a newer method, Illustration- Interaction –induction (III) (McCarthy and Carter, 1995). Unlike PPP, this method does not include the opportunity for practice and production, rather focuses on consciousness-raising. I have attempted to integrate the features of both DDL and III in order to examine whether the hybrid approach would be comparatively more effective. Page 38 of 104

Illustration: Unlike PPP, this approach suggests a lesson begin with the illustration of authentic data. By authentic data, based on DDL, I mean the concordance derived from corpus data. This can be displayed electronically or can be given to the students in a printed handout. Interaction: In a similar way to that used in the first Intervention (DDL with PPP), at this stage, the students will discuss the language features observed in the data through consciousness raising activities. The students will firstly identify the language they are being exposed to, and then they will classify the concordance data to describe the features of the target language. Induction: At this stage, the students collaboratively try to discover the patterns (not rules) and the teacher might guide them if they need any support. By patterns here I mean the structures in which the language has been used in a particular context. These patterns may not be generalized in the way that prescriptive rules can. There will be no „practice‟ and „produce‟ activity as discussed in the literature review. The DDL basically differs from III on the basis of focus on „Form‟ and „FormS‟ ; DDL being more similar to „Focus on Form‟ and III to „Focus on FormS‟. „Focus on form refers to draw „......students‟ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication‟ (Long, 1991, p. 45-6), where as „focus on formS‟ refers to „the traditional teaching of discreet points of grammar in separate lessons, as in the approach advocated by DeKeyser (1998)‟ (Sheen, 2002, p. 303). Data-Driven Learning basically requires learners to identify the language they need in the classroom, where as in III, the teacher has already pre-decided what grammatical item he is going to teach. To be specific, the present intervention is a „Focus on Forms‟, thus a hybrid form of III and DDL.

Page 39 of 104

3.4.2 Written Discourse Markers as Input

Moreover, three lessons were designed based on each intervention and taught to the participants. In order to examine the relative effectiveness of these interventions, I chose to teach written discourse markers since the discourse markers or linking adverbial are predominantly frequent in academic writing (Biber, et al, 1999) and Altenberg & Topper (1998), Flowerdew (1998) and Granger & Tyson (1996) found quite a number of students have focused on the use of discourse markers in academic writing and exposed problem of overuse, underuse and misuse Similarly, the EAP learners tend to „adopt an overtly spoken style in their EAP writing‟ (Gilquin, Granger & Paquot, 2007, p. 323). In all the three lessons, the students were taught written discourse markers. The following table displays the classes of discourse markers they were taught and tested. Table 1: Classification of Discourse Markers

Discourse Markers Expressing reasons and results

Expressing contrast

1. Reason: because (of), as, since, due to , owing to

Group 1: But, although, even though, though

2. Result: as a result, consequently, therefore, so ......(that)..., such .......(that)

Group 2: In spite of, despite

Group 3: However, while, where as

3.4.3 The Nature of Concordance Data As already mentioned, Data-Driven Learning requires learners discovering their own grammar by noticing the underlying patterns in the concordance data. Both intervention groups navigated through concordance-based materials. To design such materials, I made use Page 40 of 104

of the Complete Lexical Tutor to obtain concordance lines based on written British National Corpus (BNC). The selection of this particular type of corpora was based on the criteria that the BNC includes real life data that represent British English. The students in this study were undertaking a pre-sessional course with an aim to develop their academic English to join British universities. Subsequently, it was believed that they would benefit more from the BNC. Secondly, the BNC was freely available online and therefore easily accessible that offered the motivated students the opportunities to follow up their own research of concordance data. Similarly, as discussed in the literature review, students prefer print outs to computers to deal with concordance lines for DDL, therefore I used hand outs containing the concordance lines in my classrooms. That was also the case owing to the fact of the limited time frame of the study. Moreover, the corpus data used in DDL tasks varied from full concordances to Key Word in Context (KWIC) format and conversational extracts. I made use of the KWIC concordance since the lessons were based on discovering the patterns and use of different written lexical discourse markers in EAP writing.

3.5 Methods of Data Analysis As already stated above, the data for this study are both qualitative and quantitative. With regard to data collected through test, the gain scores from pre-test and post-test were analyzed using Independent-samples t-tests (Dornyei, 2007) as these two sets of test scores are independent of each other. This method of data analysis is relevant as the analysis is the „compare between two groups randomly assigned‟ (Cohen et al, 2007) in the study. The analysis of the data has been presented in tables in order to provide readers with a visual representation of the findings. In addition, the data obtained through the focus groups were qualitative, and relatively more troublesome to analyse. A useful method to analyse the qualitative data is through the process Page 41 of 104

of data reduction, data display, and drawing conclusions (Cohen et al, 2007). Firstly, for data reduction, it starts with editing, segmenting and summarizing the data, which is followed by coding and memoing. Then, conceptualizing and explaining of data takes place since Punch (2009, p. 174) says “developing abstract concepts is also a way of reducing the data”. After the data is reduced, it has further been classified into different strata according to the questions raised in the focus groups and is displayed in tables referring to different strata. Displaying data enables data to be organized and summarized.

3.6 Ethical Issues There were some ethical issues to consider in this research. Firstly, authorization was obtained from the Language Academy at University of Central Lancashire to carry out the research. Secondly, the students were asked to give informed consent to take part in the study. Similarly, the participants in focus group interviews were taken oral consent. I mentioned the purposes of the study and that the information the participants provide would be dealt confidentially only for the study. During the interview, notes were taken and the audio was recorded electronically for reference while writing the report. The respondents were made aware of that before recording so as to ensure the respondent was not taken aback by the recording, thus being quieter and not giving in-depth answers.

3.7 Conclusions The current research undertakes a mixed methods approach. More specifically, this is an „experimental with parallel interview‟ research that has examined the relative effectiveness of two interventions: DDL with PPP and DDL with III. To carry out the experiment, two experimental groups were formed of 10 students each doing a pre-sessional course at

Page 42 of 104

University of Central Lancashire, UK, and both groups were exposed to the interventions. A pre-test was given before the interventions were introduced and post-test after the interventions that was further followed by a delayed-post test. The test scores and gains were compared to determine the relative effectiveness of both interventions. Similarly, a focus group including 4 participants in each was conducted to get data on the attitudes of the students towards DDL. Moreover, the written discourse markers were selected as language item to teach while comparing these interventions since discourse markers are often taken as one of challenging areas for EAP writing. Finally, some ethical issues were taken into consideration in this study.

Page 43 of 104

Chapter 4: Results and Findings The aim of this study was to ascertain the effectiveness of Data-Driven Learning (DDL) and the relative effectiveness of its integration into PPP method and III method. This chapter presents the summary and analysis of the data, the final results of the study and the answer to the research questions.

4.1 Data Analysis and Results 4.1.1 Data from the Tests

The following table shows the results of the pre-test, post-test and delayed post-tests that were given to both experimental groups. Table 2: Test results Experimental group-1 (DDL with PPP)

Experimental group-2 (DDL with III)

Mean (out of 10)

Deviation

Mean (out of 10)

4.4/10

±1.71

4.5/10

± 1.77

6.5/10

± 1.178

9.2/10

± 1.39

6/10

± 1.054

8.2/10

± 0.918

(± Standard

(± Standard

Deviation

Pre-test Post-test Delayed Post-test

The test results suggest that in the pre-test, experimental group-2 outperformed experimental group-1 since the mean score for the former was 4.5 as opposed to the latter, which reached 4.4. Similarly, in the post-test, the experimental group-1 scored 6.5, while the mean score of experimental group-2 was 9.2, and therefore experimental group-2 appeared to have performed significantly better than experimental group-1. A similar trend continued in the delayed post-test, experimental group-1 had a mean score of 6, while experimental group-2 had 8.2. Moreover, comparing the test scores between the tests, both experimental groups Page 44 of 104

show higher scores in the post and delay post-test. Therefore, it may be possible that both experimental groups experienced learning. Data analysis of intra-group test performance A comparison of performances of both experimental groups including two tests at a time will offer further insights into the relative effectiveness of the interventions (see table 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). A separate column is designated to present differences in scoring which refers to the level of learning that has taken place as a result of the interventions. Table 3: Performance of the experimental group-1 in pre and post-tests Students S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 Sum Mean Variation Standard Deviation

Pre-test 7 6 3 6 4 2 5 4 5 2 44 4.4 2.933 1.712

Post-test 6 6 5 9 6 6 8 6 7 6 65 6.5 1.388 1.178

Differences -1 0 2 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 21 2.1 2.5 1.59

Table 4: Performance of the experimental group-2 in pre and post-tests Students S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 Sum Mean Variation Standard Deviation

Pre-test 6 6 6 5 3 4 4 2 7 2 45 4.5 3.16 1.77

Post-test 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 6 92 9.2 1.95 1.39

Differences 4 2 4 5 7 6 6 6 3 4 47 4.7 2.24 1.567 Page 45 of 104

The mean scores of both experimental groups were higher in the post-test than the pre-test except the S1 in the experimental group-1 who achieved a lower score and the S2 who had constant score in the post-test. The overall achievement in the performance of both interventions is therefore attributed to the greater scoring differences of individual learners. What is of great interest, however, is that the learners in the experimental group-2 seemed to achieve significantly higher than those in the experimental group-1: a ratio of 47:21 differences. Table 5: Performance of the experimental group-1 in pre-test and delayed post-tests Students S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 Sum Mean Variation Standard Deviation

Pre-test 7 6 3 6 4 2 5 4 5 2 44 4.4 2.933 1.712

Delayed Post-test 7 6 5 8 5 5 7 6 6 5 60 6.0 1.11 1.054

Differences 0 0 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 16 1.6 1.15 1.0749

Table 6: Performance of the experimental group-2 in pre-test and delayed post-tests Students S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 Sum Mean Variation Standard Deviation

Pre-test 6 6 6 5 3 4 4 2 7 2 45 4.5 3.16 1.77

Delayed Post-test 8 8 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 6 82 8.2 0.844 0.918

Differences 2 2 3 4 6 4 4 6 2 4 37 3.7 2.233 1.49 Page 46 of 104

Following the same trend, the mean scores of both experimental groups were again higher in the delayed post-test than the pre-test with the S1 and S2, exceptionally showing constant scores in both tests (see Table 5 and 6). The marked upward change in scoring differences, by 16 in the experimental group-1 and 37 in the experimental group-2, therefore showed that both interventions seemed to impart learning in the participants with the intervention-2 being relatively more effective. Table 7: Performance of the experimental group-1 in post-test and delayed post-tests Students S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 Sum Mean Variation Standard Deviation

Post-test 6 6 5 9 6 6 8 6 7 6 65 6.5 1.388 1.178

Delayed Post-test 7 6 5 8 5 5 7 6 6 5 60 6.0 1.11 1.054

Differences 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -5 -0.5 0.5 0.707

Table 8: Performance of the experimental group-2 in post and delayed post-tests Students S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 Sum Mean Variation Standard Deviation

Post-test 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 6 92 9.2 1.95 1.3

Delayed Post-test 8 8 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 6 82 8.2 0.844 0.918

Differences -2 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 0 -1 0 -10 -1 0.666 0.816 Page 47 of 104

Contrastively, it would appear that both experimental groups achieved lower scores in delayed post-test than the post-test (see Table 7 and 8). The experimental group-2 here had higher differences than the experimental group-1: the former with -10 and latter with -5. 4.1.2 Data from the focus group

As earlier mentioned, I had prompted the participants to discuss on some key themes related the interventions, however, they also commended on unprompted. The focus group was recorded electronically, and therefore, had first to be carefully transcribed (see Appendix 7). Then, the complete discussion was reduced to key ideas and was categorized into six issues that were raised during the focus group sessions. Secondly, the reduced data was displayed in six different tables relating to each issue. Finally, conclusions were drawn from the reduced data displayed in the tables. The following tables show the attitudes of the participants towards Data-Driven Learning. The participants are coded P1, P2, P3 and P4. The codes refer to the first, second, third and fourth participant of the focus group. Table 9: Issue 1: Overall impression towards DDL Participants P1 P2

P3

P4

        

Response Positive impression Can easily notice what is going to be learned in the lesson Positive impression Highlighted words [KWIC] in concordance lines helps in noticing , and therefore helps in learning Good way to learn Learned the discourse markers Found the meaning of discourse markers in the examples clear Positive impression Example sentences are good to study but sometimes complex to understand

Page 48 of 104

The first issue was raised to get the information on their overall attitude towards Data-Driven Learning. It appeared to be clear that all the participants had a positive impression of DataDriven Learning. They mentioned that they were able to learn through this approach and they especially liked the key words being highlighted as it helped them notice what they were going to learn. However, P4 found some sentences in the concordance data too complex to understand. Table 10: Issue 2: Learners’ autonomy Participants P1 P2 P3 P4

Response        

Good for self learning I can understand by myself the meaning of discourse makers. Useful for self study I can check it many times on hand outs to understand myself Useful for self learning Can download and use online and repeat again and again to learn Good for self-learning We can find what we don‟t know by ourselves

The second issue that was raised in the focus group was related to the learners‟ autonomy. The issue was raised to investigate whether the participants were able to discover the patterns from the concordance data and what their attitudes towards learning through self-discovery were. On this point, the data indicates an absolute unanimity that DDL is a good tool for self learning. P1 mentioned that he was able to the find the meaning of discourse markers by himself. Similarly, P3 emphasized the characteristic of DDL that enables learners to download the concordance data or use it online whenever they want, and repeatedly, in order to learn. That is, he finds concordance data to be better teaching and learning materials than those that are limited to classrooms only, due to easy access to such materials. Additionally, P4 pointed that DDL is a good tool for self learning that enables learners to research on their own those things they do not understand.

Page 49 of 104

Table 11: Issue 3: Learning difficulties Participants P1 P2

 

P3



P4



Response Difficult words and grammar in concordance lines. Difficult words confuse we can‟t understand the meaning of the context, [that stops us learning ] Unusual words come that we don‟t know the meaning of and that makes our learning difficult Difficult academic vocabulary that confuses the meaning of the context makes the learning complex

The next issue that emerged from the focus group accounted for the difficulties that the learners faced while learning through DDL. There was unanimity in the response that the difficult words used in the concordance lines might have been obstacles to their learning. The responses assume that the participants could not understand the meaning of the difficult words, which made it difficult to understand the context in which the discourse markers were used. Additionally, P1 mentioned that sometimes the difficult grammar (complex sentence structure) made comprehending the context challenging. Table 12: Issue 4: Need of teachers’ support Participants P1 P2 P3 P4

    

Response Yes-we find the patterns but not sure if the patterns are correct. So we need the teacher to explain the patterns for us Yes- we need teachers to describe difficult words for us. Yes- agree with P2 Difficult words need to be explained by the teacher Yes-agree with them

The fourth issue was with regard to the students‟ need for support from the teacher while dealing with the concordance data and discovering the underlying patterns in them. There was complete agreement on the need for a teachers‟ support especially to describe the difficult words for them in order to bring ease in their comprehension of the context. In a similar vein, P1‟s view was that the learners discover patterns but are not sure if their discovery is correct. The learners, therefore, indicated the need for teachers‟ explanation of the patterns for them. Page 50 of 104

Table 13: Issue 5: Opportunity for practice and production Participants P1 P2

P3 P4

    

Response Need to practice again and again to bring it to memory Need practice We learn but we forget, so we need more practice to keep it in memory Practice helps improve learning Practice more and more to notice the use and to use them in our essays

A further issue was the need for opportunities to practice and produce. It was possibly apparent that they felt the need for practice in order to transfer learning to memory. P2 reported that they learn and forget, and therefore may need opportunities to practice in order to keep it in their memory. Likewise, P4 was of the opinion that the more they practice, the easier it is to recall it and could produce what they have learned. Table 14: Issue 6 Like/dislike this approach Participants P1 P2

P3 P4

     

Response This approach is boring. Concordance lines make me feel sleepy I like this approach I can follow my own level to research questions I come across while learning Good approach but needs teachers support Don‟t really like this approach Like communicative methods and conversation in class that help to remember words.

The last issue for discussion was whether they liked this approach to learning. There was a variation in comments here, P2 and P3appeared to like this approach. According to P2, learners can follow up their learning and can research solutions any problems they come across while learning. In contrast, P1 and P4 seemed less likely to prefer this approach: P1 felt that, repeatedly, going over the concordance data was a boring task, whereas P4 mentioned her liking towards the communicative activity.

Page 51 of 104

4.2 Findings The findings of this study are presented as answers to the following 3 questions. RQ 1: Is DDL an effective approach for teaching written Discourse Markers to L2 learners of English in an EAP context? The participants of both experimental groups appeared to have an upward scoring performance in both post-test and delayed post-test over the pre-test, and it can therefore be said that DDL might be an effective approach in this particular situation irrespective of its integration into other methods. The mean score for experimental group-1 was 4.4 out of 10 in the pre-test, reaching 6.5 in the post-test but, although remaining higher than the pre-test, dropping to 6 in the delayed post-test. Similarly, the mean score 4.5 in the pre-test reached 9.2 in the post-test and 8.2 in the delayed post-test in experimental group-2. These data evidently suggest that DDL in both interventions was successful in helping the participants to learn. With regard to the students‟ attitude towards DDL, it would appear that the participants had a positive attitude despite some difficulties they experienced while working with this approach. They seemed to find DDL an effective approach that might have helped for self-study, and therefore developed their autonomy. Consequently, it can be concluded that DDL might be an effective approach to teaching discourse markers to L2 users of English in an EAP context. RQ 2: What is the relative effectiveness of DDL with Present-Practice-Produce (PPP) and DDL with Illustration- Interaction- Induction (III) for the acquisition of written Discourse Markers? The test scores clearly indicated the effectiveness of DDL, and in terms of its relative effectiveness with integration into PPP and III, the latter appeared to have significantly better effect. The test scores in the post-tests in both interventions were higher than the pre-tests, Page 52 of 104

suggesting that the participants had learned through these interventions. However, the delayed post-testes received lower scores than the post-tests, and yet higher than the pre-tests. As a result, the evidence suggests that the learning was possibly constant over the time until the delayed post-tests, which might be automatized to become permanent learning in the future. This could be because it takes a long time for information to transfer from a short term memory to long term memory for automatization of that information, and practice plays a significant role in transferring that information (McLaughlin, Rossman & McLeod, 1983). One of the key distinctions between these interventions was the opportunity for practice and production in opposition to consciousness-raising. As discussed above, the intervention „DDL with PPP‟ included the opportunity for practice and production, and „DDL with III‟ comprised consciousness-raising. The results suggest that DDL with III was relatively more effective. This possibly reveals that DDL can better be integrated with III. However, this does not seem to demean the opportunity for practice and production since, on the one hand, DDL with PPP intervention had a degree of effectiveness in imparting learning to the participants and, on the other hand, practice has an effect in the long term (Ur, 1988; McLaughlin, Rossman & McLeod, 1983; Karpicke & III, 2007). This study was limited to a short period of time but, over a longer timescale, the opportunity for practice and production might prove to be more effective. RQ 3: What might be the problems of implementing DDL in this setting? The evidence suggests that DDL was successfully implemented in this setting, however, there were some problems that the students faced while learning through this approach. In contrast to Wilson‟s (2013) study that concluded that DDL was unsuitable for lower levels of learner, this study appeared to find DDL to have some degree of suitability for lower level learners. Nevertheless, the difficult words and complex sentence structures were likely to make it difficult for them to comprehend the context. Similarly, the learners seemingly had a problem Page 53 of 104

understanding the meaning of unusual words that have pragmatic meanings in terms of the culture of the UK. This might be because authentic language is too difficult for the learners to realize (Morrison, 1989 and William, 1983). Indeed Gotz (2012) found such materials to be useful when they were pre-edited. Therefore, for the lower level of learners, it would be important to pre-edit the concordance data in order to bridge the gap in students‟ comprehension. Moreover, similar to Chujo et al‟s research (2012), the learners in this study tended to show the need for a teachers‟ support in order to explaining the patterns and usages. The students discovered the patterns but they needed the teacher to confirm whether their discovery was correct. On this point, I also believe that having the teacher explain the discovered patterns will also benefit the weaker students. The next problem that the students seemed to have encountered was that it was monotonous to repeatedly go over the concordance data. Nonetheless, I think it was not really a problem. It appeared that the students‟ lack of motivation for self learning was more crucial, as the students were probably more used to teacher-initiated learning. Therefore, the tasks requiring students‟ self learning was new and monotonous for them. They might have expected the teacher to explain patterns for them, rather than getting them to explore.

Page 54 of 104

Chapter 5: Discussions and Limitations This chapter discusses the implications of the results with specific reference to the research questions and the issues discussed by the literature review. It also examines the limitations of this study.

5.1 Discussion The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of DDL and to suggest an effective method to be integrated with DDL that EAP teachers and students will make use of while teaching and learning written discourse markers. The post-tests and delayed post-tests that were designed to measure the learning performance on the written discourse markers produced considerably better results than the pre-tests that had outlined the proficiency level of the participants on written discourse markers before the interventions were administered (see Table 2). This makes it evident that DDL can be an effective approach to teaching written discourse markers. At the same time, for its integration to good effect, it can be integrated with both PPP and III. DDL with III would seem, however, to work better. Similarly, it appeared that consciousness-raising activities worked better than practice based activities. The study was limited to a short period of time: the post-test was given soon after the final input sessions and the delayed post-test two weeks later. As a consequence, the results might be expected to differ over a long term since it can be argued that the effect of practice is experienced in the long term (Ur, 1988; McLaughlin, Rossman & McLeod, 1983; Karpicke & III, 2007). I would therefore suggest the execution of a long term study in the future dedicated to investigating the effect of practice and consciousness-raising. Additionally, it would also be interesting to determine whether practice after consciousnessraising might provide extra benefits in the automatizing of learning into acquired knowledge.

Page 55 of 104

The focus group, which was especially grounded in finding attitudes of the students towards DDL, resulted in responses that tended to show the students‟ positive attitudes. There were a few issues raised during the focus group. Firstly, they shared their overall positive impression while discussing their general impression on DDL (See Table 9). Secondly, they discussed the issue of learners as researchers and revealed that they could find the meaning and patterns by themselves. They also reported to use DDL as a research tool outside the classrooms to find out the solutions to the problems (See Table 10). Thus, as suggested by Nazari (2014) and Wachob (2005) it is possible that learners can take control of their own learning to act autonomously in DDL. This also supports the works by Veckers & Ene (2006) and Dehghan & Darasawang (2014) who found DDL to be a suitable tool for developing learners‟ autonomy. Thirdly, the discussion moved towards the problems that the students faced while using DDL. The common problem that they mentioned was the difficulty in understanding difficult words and complex sentence structures in concordance data. This might have demotivateed the students to some extent, as also found in William (1983) and Morrison (1989). This may be the reason why Wilson (2013) found DDL unsuitable for lower level learners. In contrast, this study assumes that DDL might be suitable for lower level learners. However, I would recommend pre-editing of the concordance data in order to bridge the language gap (as also recommended by Gotz (2012). The next issue discussed was whether they needed teachers‟ support. The results indicated some degree of agreement on the need for teachers‟ support, especially to describe the difficult words and structures to help them comprehend the context (See Table 12). The students also tended to want the teacher to explain the patterns after they had explored their own grammar. This may be owing to their lack of confidence or their habit of depending on teachers. Therefore, it might be helpful if a teacher explains the patterns after the students have discovered patterns through given concordance data. This also prevents learners form developing false consciousness due to the lack of „negative evidence‟ (White, 1988, p. 125) in the concordance data. Ellis (1984) also

Page 56 of 104

points out that input alone is not sufficient, and consequently exposure to data should be combined with instruction. To sum up the discussion above, DDL can be an effective approach that helps learners develop their autonomy and discover their own learning. However, it needs integration into other method(s). It can be better integrated into III than PPP, and the learners‟ discovery can be followed by teachers‟ instruction for better acquisition. In addition, the texts can be preedited to simplify the language used in the concordance data.

5.2 Limitations Several limitations of this study are worth commenting on. First, whereas the sample represents a population of multilingual L2 learners of EAP in the UK, the participants consisted of 17 Chinese speakers and 3 Arabic speakers of English. The majority of participants might have used their L1 to mediate their understanding, thereby influencing the results. Similarly, this study employed a „convenience non-random sampling‟ that might have resulted in a selection bias, and consequently influenced the findings. The small sample size, which limited the number of variables, also limited the generalizability of the findings and diminished the statistical strength of the analysis. Another important limitation of this study is the length of the study. One of the findings, that consciousness-raising showed better learning than practice in DDL, might have had different results if it had been a long term study. As earlier discussed, the effects of practice are often seen in the long term but this study was limited to a short period. Similarly, there was a very short gap between the post-test and the delayed post-test. A longer gap between these tests might also have shown different results. The limited number of test items in all the tests might also have influenced the results of this study. Ten test items were included in each test equally divided into receptive and productive Page 57 of 104

test items. Longer tests are more reliable and also to generalize the learning that reduce the possibility of guessing (Cohen et al, 2007). Since the test items were objective in nature, the participants might have guessed the answers, thus limiting the values of the results.

Page 58 of 104

Chapter 6: Conclusions Investigating the effectiveness of different approaches to teaching grammar is not a new practice in second language acquisition but there is an array of areas still under-researched. One such area includes classroom research in EAP situations. This current study chose a corpus based, inductive approach to teaching grammar, namely Data-Driven Learning, to ascertain DDL‟s effectiveness when integrated into other methods, while teaching and learning written discourse markers for EAP students in the UK. The reason I attempted to integrate DDL with other methods, was to add more value to DDL in order to enhance its strength and effectiveness. Two interventions were therefore developed: „DDL with PPP‟ and „DDL with III‟. These were then applied to two different experimental groups. A pre-test was given to the students which was used as a baseline for comparison with the scores of the post and delayed post-tests in order to examine the relative effectiveness of both interventions. The test results suggest that both interventions had an impact on the performance of the written discourse markers, with participants showing an increased number of correct responses following the interventions. However, the experimental group that received DDL with III intervention showed relatively better acquisition than the DDL with PPP group in the short term. The scores of the post-tests were significantly higher than those in the pre-tests, which again decreased in the delayed post-test. The scores of the delayed post-tests were, however, yet higher than the pre-tests. From this, two conclusions can be drawn: on the one hand, the interventions were effective since they resulted in a greater ability of students to use written discourse markers in the short term, whilst on the other hand, the results might have been different had the intervention been sustained over time as there was lower ability shown in the delayed-post tests. The study also seemed to demonstrate that the consciousness-raising was more effective than practice, thereby supports Ellis (2002)‟s claim of consciousness-raising being more effective Page 59 of 104

than practice and in line with anti-practice linguists (Long, 1991; Long & Robinson, 1998; DeKeyser, 2010; VanPatten, 2004; and Wong & VanPatten, 2003). Nonetheless, the use of practice had a short-term impact upon learners‟ ability and all the participants of the focus group felt the need for practice to automatise their output, as might have been expected according to McLaughlin, Rossman, & McLead, (1983). Therefore, it would be unwise to claim practice or PPP as discredited methods, as some have suggested (namely Lewis, 1993; Skehan, 1996). Moreover, it is also asserted that practice has a long-term effect (Ur, 1988; McLaughlin, Rossman & McLeod, 1983; Karpicke & III, 2007), which is a point that could not be evaluated within the time framework of this study. Furthermore, this study looked at the students‟ attitudes towards DDL. All but one of the participants acknowledged a degree of acquisition through this approach. This one student found repeated review of concordance data, without any communicative activity, to be monotonous. This might be why Johns (1991) stated learners need to be highly motivated for DDL. As expected, the students had problems understanding difficult words and complex structures in the concordance data. Authentic data are often difficult to comprehend (William, 1983 and Morrison, 1989), and therefore Gotz (2012) recommends pre-editing the concordance data before exposing it to the learners. Difficulty understanding the meaning of unusual words in the target language because of their cultural and pragmatic meanings may not be unusual, however. In addition, the participants mentioned that they needed teachers to explain the patterns discovered through the concordance data in order to make sure that what they had discovered was correct. This substantiates the need for explicit explanation (Norris &Ortega, 2000) of learners‟ discovered patterns. Consequently, this study recommends the integration of explicit explanations of patterns into DDL following the learners‟ own discovery of patterns, as suggested by Burgess & Etherington (2002) and Bamard &Scampton (2008).

Page 60 of 104

The findings indicate a direction for future research, especially in the light of integrating other methods into DDL, using larger sample size and increasing the duration of the study. In particular a longer interval between post-test and delayed post-test might be useful. One might also look at the type of noticing and mediation the learners experience while trying to discover patterns from concordance data.

Page 61 of 104

References Aarts, B., Clayton, D. and Wallis, S. (2012) „Bridging the grammar gap: teaching English grammar to the iPhone generation‟ in English Today 28, pp 3-8. Abraham, R. (1985) „Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar‟ in Quarterly 19, pp 689-702. Ahmad, K.., Corbett, G., Rogers, M. and Sussex, R. (1985) Computers, Language Learning and Language Teaching, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Altenberg, B. and Tapper, M. (1998) „The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners‟ written English‟ in S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer (pp. 80–93). London: Addison-Wesley, Longman. Azad, M. A. K. (2013) „Grammar teaching in EFL classrooms: Teachers‟ attitudes and beliefs‟ in ASA University Review 7/ 2, pp. 111-126. Bailey, N., Madden, C. and Krashen, S. D. (1974) „ Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning?‟ in Language Learning 24, pp 235-243. Barnard, R. & Scampton, D. (2008) „Teaching grammar: a survey of EAP teachers in New Zealand‟ in New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics 14/2, pp. 59-82. Batstone, R. (1996) „Key concepts in ELT: noticing‟ in ELT Journal 50/3, p 273. Bernardini, S. (2002) „Exploring new directions for discovery learning‟ in Kettemann, Bernard & Marko, Georg (eds.), Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz 19-24 July, 2000. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 165-182. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language. Applied Linguistics in Series, London: Longman. Page 62 of 104

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Harlow: Longman. Boulton, A. (2008b) „ Looking for Empirical Evidence of Data-Driven Learning at Lower Levels‟ in Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk, Barbara (ed.), Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools, and Applications: State of the Art. Frankfurt Boulton, A. (2009) „Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and Training‟ in ReCALL, 21/1, pp 37-51. Boulton, A. (2010) „Data-Driven Learning: Taking the Computer out of the Equation‟ in Language Learning 60 /3, pp 534-572. Borg. S. and Bums, A. (2008) „Integrating grammar in Adult TESOL classrooms‟ in Applied Linguistics, 29/2, pp 456-482. Breyer, Y. (2011) Corpora in Language Teaching and Learning: Potential, Challenges, Evaluation, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Bright, J. A. (1947) „Grammar in the English syllabus‟ in ELT Journal 1/ 7, pp.173-177. Burgess, J. and Etherington, S. (2002) „Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit?‟ in System 30, pp 433-458. Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (1995) „Grammar and the spoken language‟ in Applied Linguistics 16, pp. 141-158. Chujo, et al (2012) „Paper-based, Computer-based and Combined Data-driven learning suing a Web-based concordancer‟ in Language Education in Asia 3/2, pp. 132-145. Cook, V. (1991) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching, London: Edward Arnold. Cowan, R. (2009) The Teacher’s Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP. Page 63 of 104

Dehghan, A. and Darasawang, P. (2014) „Independent learning through the use of data driven learning‟ in Proceedings of the International Conference: DRAL 2/ILA 2014. DeKeyser, R. M. (1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, pp. 42-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007) Practice in Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: CUP. DeKeyser, R. M. (2010) „Practice for second language learning: Don‟t throw out the baby with the bathwater‟ in International Journal of English Studies 10/1, pp. 155165. Ellis, N. (1998) „Emergentism, connectionism and language learning‟ in Language Learning 48, pp. 631-664. Ellis, R. (1993) „Second language acquisition research: how does it help teachers?‟ in ELT Journal. 47 /1, pp 3-11. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, H. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281–318. Ellis, R. (2001) „Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction‟ in Language Learning. Supplement 1: Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning, 51, 146. Eisenstein, M. (1987). Grammatical explanations in ESL: Teach the student, Not the

Page 64 of 104

method. In M. Long & J. Richards (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL (pp. 282- 292). New Jersey: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Ellis, R. (2002) Grammar teaching- practice or consciousness-raising? In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 167-174). Cambridge: CUP. Ellis, R. (2006) „Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective‟ in TESOL Quarterly 40/1, pp. 83-107. Ellis, R. (2008) „Principles of Instructed Second Language Acquisition‟ in CAL Digest, December, 2008, pp. 1-6. Ellis, R. (2010) „Does explicit grammar instruction work?‟ in NIJLL Project Review, No. 2, pp. 3-22. Erlam, R. (2003) „The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language‟ in The Modern Language Journal, 87, pp 242-260. Flowerdew, L. (1998) „Integrating expert and interlanguage computer corpora findings on causality: Discoveries for teachers and students‟ in ESP Journal, 17/4, pp 329– 345. Flowerdew, L. (2009) „Applying Corpus Linguistics to Pedagogy: A Critical Evaluation‟ in International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14 /3, pp 393- 417. Gilakjani, A. P. and Ahmadi, S. M. (2011) „Roles of consciousness in second language acquisition.Theory and Practice‟ in Language Studies 1/5. pp. 435-442. Gilquin, G., Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (2007) „Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy‟ in Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6, pp. 319-335.

Page 65 of 104

Gotz, S. (2012). Testing task-types in data-driven learning: benefits and limitations. Academia.edu. Available on https://www.academia.edu/2102634/Testing_tasktypes_in_data-driven_learning_Benefits_and_limitations. Last accessed on 27 Aug. 14. Granger, S. (2002) „A Bird’s-eye View of Learner Corpus Research. In: Granger/Hung/Petch Tyson 2002, 3-33. Granger, S. and Tyson, S. (1996) „Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English‟ in World Englishes 15, pp 9–29. Guan, X. (2013) „ A study on the application of Data-driven learning in vocabulary teaching and learning in China‟s EFL class‟ in Journal of Language Teaching and Research 4/1, pp. 105- 112. Harmer, J. (1987) Teaching and Learning Grammar: London: Longman. Henry, W.C.H., Evelyn, W.M.C. and Terence, T.S.L. (2011) Examining the effectiveness of adopting an inductive approach to the teaching of English grammar. Retrieved from http://www.edb.org.hk/HKTC/download/eras/1011/ERAS1011_R09.pdf Herron, C. and Tomasello, M. (1992) „Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction‟ in French Review 65, pp 708-718. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005) „Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning‟ in Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, pp 129-140. Jarvis, H. and Szymczyk, M. (2009) „Students views on learning grammar with web- and book-based material‟ in ELT Journal 64/1, pp. 32- 44.

Page 66 of 104

Johns, C. and Carter, R. (2014) „Teaching spoken discourse markers explicitly: A comparison of III and PPP‟ in International Journal of English Studies 14/1, pp. 37-54. Johansson, S. (2009) Some thoughts on corpora and second-language acquisition. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and Language Teaching (pp. 33-44). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Johns, T. (1976). The commounicative approach to language teaching in the framework of a programme of English for academic purposes. In E. Roulet & H. Holec (Eds.) , L’Enseignement de la Competence de Communication en Languages Secondes, Neuchatel: Institut de Linguistique de I‟Universite de Neuchatel, pp. 84- 112. Johns, T. (1986) „Micro-concord: a language learner-learner‟s research tool‟ in System 14/2. Johns, T. and King, P. (1991). „Classroom Concordancing‟ in Birmingham University: English Language Research Journal 4, pp 1-12. Kaltenbock, G. and Mehlmauer-Larcher, B. (2005)‟ Computer Corpora and the Language Classroom: On the Potential and Limitations of Computer Corpora in Language Teaching‟ in ReCALL 17/1, pp 65-84. Karpicke, L. D. and III, H. L. R. (2007) „Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention‟ in Journal of Experimental Psychology 33/4, pp. 704-719. Ke, Z. (2008) „An inductive approach to English grammar teaching: HKBU Papers‟ in Applied Languages Studies 12, pp. 1-18. Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Page 67 of 104

Krashen, S. D. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. London: Pergamon. Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach. Oxford : OUP Krashen, S. (2002). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company. Komos, J. (1999) „Monitoring and self-repairs in L2‟ in Language Learning 49/2, pp 303342. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching Language: from Grammar to Grammaring. Boston: Thomson Heinle. Lewis, M (1993) The Lexical Approach. LTP Teacher Trainings Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press Long, M. H. and Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press. MacWhinney, B. (1997) „Implicit and explicit processes: Commentary‟ in Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19 /2, pp 277-281. McKay, S. (1980) „Developing vocabulary materials with a computer corpus‟ in RELC Journal, 11/2, pp 77-87. Page 68 of 104

McKnight, A. (1989) Language and Language Teaching: Study Guide, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. and McLead, B. (1983) „Second language learning: an information-processing perspective‟ in Journal of Research in Language Studies 33 /2, pp. 135-158. Mohamed, N. (2004) „Consciousness-raising tasks: a learner perspective‟ in ELT Journal Volume 58 /3, pp. 228- 237. Morrison, B. 1989, „Using news broadcasts for authentic listening comprehension‟ in ELT Journal 43/1, pp. 14-23. Mull, J. (2013) „The learner as researcher: Student concordancing and error correction‟ in Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4/1, pp 43-55. Nagaratnam, R. P. and Al-Mekhlafi, (2012) „Attitudes towards EFL grammar instruction: inductive of deductive‟ in LEARN Journal 1/ 2, pp. 78-105. Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (2000) „Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis‟ in Language Learning 50, pp 417-428. Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. (2004) „Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar‟ in Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp 129-145. Nazari, N. (2014) „The impact of implicit tasks on improving the learners‟ writing in terms of autonomy and grammatical accuracy‟ in International Journal of Instruction 7/1, pp. 121-134. Odlin, T. (1994) Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press O‟Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 69 of 104

Peacock, M. (1997) „The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners‟ in ELT Journal 51/ 2, pp. 144-49. Pienemann, M. (1988) „Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing‟ in AILA Review 5, pp 40-72. Prabhu, N .S. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prabhu, N. (1990) „There is no best method – why?‟ in TESOL Quarterly, 24/ 2, pp.161 – 176 Ranalli, J. M. (2011). Consciousness-raising versus deductive approaches to language instruction: a study of learner preferences. University of Birmingham, 2011 Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental, rulesearch conditions, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67 Rosa, R. and O‟Neill, M. D. (1999) „Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness‟ in Second Language Acquisition, 21, pp 511-556. Sah, P. K. (2014). If only it were true: the problems with grammar teaching. NELTA Choutari.Available at.http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/if-only-itwere-true-the-problems-with-grammar-teaching/ Savignon, S. J. (1991) „Communicative language teaching: State of the art‟ in TESOL Quarterly, 25/ 2, pp. 261-77. Schmidta, R. (1990) „The role of consciousness in second language learning‟ in Applied Linguistics 11, pp 129 - 158. Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Page 70 of 104

Schwartz, B. (1993) „On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior‟ in Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, pp 147-163. Seliger, H. W. (1975) „Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A reexamination‟ in IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching 13, pp 1-18. Shaffer, C. (1989) „A comparison of inductive and deductive approached to teaching languages‟ in The Modern Language Journal 73, pp 395-403. Sheen, R. (2002) „Key concepts in ELT: „Focus on form‟ and „focus on forms‟ in ELT Journal 56/ 3, pp. 303-305. Shehadeh, A. (2002) „Comprehensible output from occurrence to acquisition: an agenda for acquisition research‟ in Language Learning, 52/ 3, pp. 597-647 Skehan, P. (1996) „A framework for the implementation for task-based instructions‟ in Applied Linguistics, 17/1, pp. 38-62. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1998) „Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together‟ in The Modern Language Journal, 8/3, pp 320-337. Tabbert, R. (1984) „Parsing the question „why teach grammar?‟ in The English Journal, Vol. 73/8, pp. 38-42. Tharp, R, and Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. London: Longman. Tutunis, B. (2012) „Grammar in EFL pedagogy: To be or not to be: Explicit or implicit grammar instruction in EFL‟ in International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2/. 5, pp. 120-122. Page 71 of 104

Tyne, H. (2012) „Corpus Work with Ordinary Teachers: Data-Driven Learning Activities. Input, Process And Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpus‟ in Masaryk University Press (Ed.) (2012), pp 114-129. Underwood, M (1989) Teaching Listening, Longman Group UK Limited, New York Ur, P. (1988). Grammar Practice Activities: A Practical Guide for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VanPatten, B. (2003). From Input to Output: A Teacher's Guide to Second Language Acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill. VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing Instruction. Theory, Research, and Commentary (pp. 5-31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vickers, C. H. & Ena, E. (2006). Grammatical accuracy and learner autonomy in advanced writing. ELT Journal, Vol. 60 (2), pp. 109- 116. Wachob, P. (2005) „ Methods and materials for motivation and learner autonomy‟ in Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(1), pp 93-122. White,L. (1988). Implications of Learnability Theories for Second Language Learning And Teaching. Printed at TESOL, Chicago. Widdowson, H. G. 1998, „Context, community, and authentic language‟, in TESOL Quarterly 32/ 4, pp. 705-15 Wong, W. and VanPatten, B. (2003) „The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT‟ in Foreign Language Annals 36/3, pp 403-423. Yoon, H. and A. Hirvela. (2004) „ESL students‟ attitudes towards corpus use in L2‟ in Journal of Second Language Writing 13/4, pp. 257- 283.

Page 72 of 104

Appendices Appendix 1: Test Questions Pre-Test for Written Discourse Markers Name: _______________________________ Level________ Group: _________ Date_________________ A. Complete each sentence with discourse markers (connectors). Example: Sales rapidly declined and as a result/consequently/therefore Bailey Brothers were forced to close factories. 1. Rises in the price of oil cause inflation and, ________________, there is upwards pressure on pay. 2. Internet marketing can automatically measure its own success __________________websites provide convenient access data. 3. __________________ the company has expanded, it hasn‟t yet increased its profits margin. 4. A number of breaches of copyright cases have been brought to court. _________________this, the amount of illegal online copying seems to be rising. 5. The UK has certainly built more roads. ________________it is the train system that has a greater need for new investment. B. Circle the correct option. Example: Elcron‟s sales figures declined in the UK during the second quarter. Subsequently, /

, expert income for the same period

Meanwhile

rose dramatically. 1. Since/In spite of we doubled our order from the wholesaler, we still ran out of supplies. 2. The interest rate on UK government bonds is 2.2% whereas/ as the rate for French bonds currently stands at 3.2%. 3. Several economists have recommended a cut in interest rates, because/ though this may cause inflation. 4. The company website failed because / although visitors found it too difficult to navigate. 5. In fact, the first attempt to change the law on copyright was unsuccessful, so/despite the Labour government of the time redrafted their bill.

Page 73 of 104

Post-Test for Written Discourse Markers Name: _____________________________ Level________ Group: _________ Date_________________ C. Complete each sentence with discourse markers (connectors). Example: It is worth noting that although the profit on a long share can be infinitely large, this is not so in the case of a „short‟ investment. 1. We've lost over 3,000 customers over the past six months.__________________, we have been forced to cut back our advertising budget. 2. Our teacher promised to take us on a field trip. __________________, he changed his mind last week 3. It rained all day, _____________________, we didn‟t swim in the sea. We postponed the programme _________________ the heavy rain. So that, we had to write an apology notice. 4. _______________ the terrible weather, we went on hiking last week. D. Underline the correct option. Example: It is therefore / however surprising that none of the articles includes any mention of the costs that might be incurred 1. She hadn't had a headache today, in spite of/ as the thundery heat. 2. I have forgotten what happened in the past, however/ therefore, I still recall a few incidents. 3. Although/ consequently this has no obvious effect on healthy term infants, it may compromise sick and preterm patients. 4. Owing to/ in spite of insecurity in rural areas, most aid goes to urban areas; probably less than thirty percent directly benefits the primary and secondary levels. 5. The family are claiming they should be compensated for the income they lost as a result of / in spite of Tony's death.

Page 74 of 104

Delayed Post-Test for Written Discourse Markers Name: _______________________________ Level________ Group: _________ Date_________________ E. Complete each sentence with discourse markers (connectors). Example: In spite of its small size, England possesses rich evidence of its history which can be found extensively throughout the country. 1. He reduced the amount of time studying for his final exams. _________________, his marks were rather low. 2. Smoking is proved to be dangerous to the health. __________________, 40% of the population smokes 3. You are late, _________________, you may not sit the examination. 4. _______________his hard work, he is not able to earn much money. 5. He died from cancer _______________his too much smoking. F. Underline the correct option. Example: So there will be an accumulation of electrons on the surface of one of the plates and consequently / in spite of a deficiency of electrons at the other plate's surface. 1. In spite of / because of your good looks you put men off once they try to get close to you. 2. She was selected for the final round. However/ as a result, she lost the competition. 3. And although/ therefore he seemed full of hope for the future, somehow I thought he would never be very rich or successful. 4. Owing to/ in spite of the shortage of suitable personnel, no such primacy existed in the mid-nineteenth-century Russian Empire

Page 75 of 104

5. The Great Britain Manchester 2000 team took the daily team prize as a result of / despite having McKay and Farrell in the leading group.

Appendix: 2: Focus Group Questions

The aim of this interview is to know your attitude towards the use of DataDriven Learning (DDL) and if it has been an effective approach to teaching written discourse markers. The result of this study is intended to give pedagogical suggestions to EFL teachers. Your answers will confidentially be used for research purposes only. 1. What is your overall impression towards using Data-Driven Learning while learning written discourse markers? 2. Do you think this has helped you develop your autonomy? If „yes‟, in what way? 3. What do you think, if any, were the difficulties that you faced while dealing with the concordance data? 4. Do you think you needed opportunity to practice and produce the patterns that you discovered through the concordance data? 5. What did you like and/or dislike about this approach of teaching, if any? 6. Do you think you need any support from the teacher while dealing with the concordance lines?

Page 76 of 104

Appendix 3: PowerPoint Slides for the Input Sessions

Lesson 1

Page 77 of 104

What do you think are the reasons for what shown in the pictures?

Task: Two Reasons [because (of ), due to, owing to]  because (of ), due to, owing to show ‘reasons’.

Make sentences to show reasons. Example: Owing to his failing eyesight, Harry could not realize me passing by. Because of global warming, ............. ...............................because the animals are killed indiscriminately. Due to the current competitive trading position within our market............................................ ABC company suffered from huge loss owing to..............................

Task: Three Look at the handouts and do the following activities. 1. Look at the underlined words and look at the words/group of words before and after them.

_____________ +because+ __________________ ______________+ because of+ ______________

_______________+ due to + ______________________ _______________+ owing to +____________________

Because (of ) , due to, owing to are use to show________________.

Page 78 of 104

What have you found out? What are the different ways to show reasons? 1.

............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................. ...................................................................................

2.

............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................. ....................................................

3.

............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................. .....................................

4. ............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................. ....................................................

Page 79 of 104

Write a couple of paragraphs about global warming and the causes/reasons for it.

Write the sentences based on the concordance on your handouts. 1. Handout 1 (based on lines 3, 5, 7 and 8) I. _________________________________________________________________ II. _________________________________________________________________ III. __________________________________________________________________ IV. __________________________________________________________________ 2. Handout 2 (based on lines 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10) I. _________________________________________________________________ II. _________________________________________________________________ III. __________________________________________________________________ IV. __________________________________________________________________ V. __________________________________________________________________ VI. __________________________________________________________________

Page 80 of 104

1.

2.

Sometimes the teachers didn't turn up ___________ they had no materials to give the students. „She did not wish to press charges ___________the prominent position she and her husband hold in London society.‟

3.

Several Air France planes were cancelled __________bad weather and they were forced to book seats with a private line.

4.

Mack and his wife did not take an active part in the Society, ____________Mack's illness, but he always took an interest in what we were doing

1.

2.

Sometimes the teachers didn't turn up because/as/since/ they had no materials to give the students. „She did not wish to press charges because of/due to/owing to the prominent position she and her husband hold in London society.‟

3.

Several Air France planes were cancelled due to/because of/as a result of /owing to bad weather and they were forced to book seats with a private line.

4.

Mack and his wife did not take an active part in the Society, owing to/ due to/because of/as a result of Mack's illness, but he always took an interest in what we were doing

Page 81 of 104

1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

achieve exciting salon effects instantly-at a fraction of the cost! And BECAUSE they're temporary, you can go blonde whenever you w ant. Like all Je minds on Saturday's sixth round FA Cup tie against Arsenal BECAUSE they were certainly a lo ng way below their best agai ng sited in cooler spots and are often renowned for failing BECAUSE they are kept too warm. A well-lit position and dryi urned out to be female! It is now called "Silver Milkmaid". BECAUSE the common holly, Ilex aquifolium , has been around that I'm eating well! I'm not one for a lot of late nights BECAUSE I have to be on form and loo king good for work. I us und admission tickets, however, do not guarantee a seat and BECAUSE OF the expected large crowd, reserved seating will b c plants. While few are fatal, all are difficult to control BECAUSE OF the presence of fish. Thu s no chemical cure can b d in the water will attract considerable numbers. Obviously BECAUSE OF the leech's habit of r esting for periods without und in the Gold Cup. Last year's winner could miss the race BECAUSE OF the fast ground. Champion Hurdle betting LADBROKE ch. This development on the green belt of Ipswich is partly BECAUSE OF the Conservative Go vernment withering away the pl

ed widely in small format "gift" catalogues. This is partly DUE TO the length of time such illum ination takes-- these Bo in this Diadora League Division One was delayed 25 minutes DUE TO Maidenhead's late arriva l. After a goalless first hal Shrewsbury but missed the U's latest match against Halifax DUE TO illness. McDonough is no w likely to team up with McGa who eventually scored the match winner, but his success was DUE TO the one slip of the game made by goalkeeper Rowe. Wit follow up. Useful contacts this paragraph has been omitted DUE TO text being of names and ad dresses in view Bernard Den provided under each, this is not connected up for operation OWING TO the small size of the m odel. The machine for operat e. ROS: Stowaways. PLAYER: Naturally -we didn't get paid, OWING TO circumstances ever so slightly beyond our control aiding on their own behalf and fighting amongst themselves. OWING TO the immense distance s involved it was impossible to s route to avoid arousing suspicion. Few people were about, OWING TO the lateness of the hou r, and the guards around the ian court and government. The town was not liable to attack OWING TO its geographical posit ion and extensive fortificati

Find what come(s) before ‘ because’. _________________+because Find what come(s) after ‘because’. Because+________________ Find what come(s) before ‘ because of’. __________________+because of Find what come(s) after ‘ because of’ Because of+________________________

Page 82 of 104

Find what come(s) before ‘ due to’. _________________+due to Find what come(s) after ‘due to’. Due to+________________ Find what come(s) before ‘ owing to’. __________________+owing to Find what come(s) after ‘ owing to’ Owing to+________________________

Find the d ‘because ___________ _________ _________ _________ Find the dif to’. ----------------------

Page 83 of 104

Final findings ____________________________ ____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________ 

1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

Page 84 of 104

Appendix 4: Sample Concordance Data

Page 85 of 104

Appendix 5: Consent Forms

Page 86 of 104

Page 87 of 104

Appendix 6: Marked Test Papers

Page 88 of 104

Page 89 of 104

Page 90 of 104

Page 91 of 104

Page 92 of 104

Page 93 of 104

Page 94 of 104

Page 95 of 104

Page 96 of 104

Page 97 of 104

Page 98 of 104

Page 99 of 104

Appendix 7: Focus Group Transcript Transcription of the focus group audio recording Researcher: The aim of this interview is to know your attitude towards the use of DataDriven Learning (DDL) ....and if it has been an effective approach to teaching written discourse markers. ...The result of this study is intended to give pedagogical suggestions to EFL teachers. ...Your answers will confidentially be used for research purposes only. Well,.. what is your overall impression towards data-driven learning while learning written discourse markers? James:

First, when I saw this – when I saw this paper, I think I can see what we are learning about .. this class... and it clearly show that ...what kind of word we will learn and there are some colourful words (( ))

Junny:

I think that‟s a good way to learn ..... the-the ... we have never learnt the word and give some example that we can clearly find what meaning in sentence.

Andy:

I think ....this is wonderful impression, especially highlighting..ah!..words and pictures used ..blue word show connect words. So which means very clear for students under-(+)stand . How about you?

Candice:

Um!...I think there were some wonderful example sentence to study and butbut sometime I can‟t understand words‟ position and (( )) (h)

James:

Yeah....yeah. Don‟t be shy.

Researcher: So you have problem , ..like you ...don‟t understand sometimes sentence and the difficult words? Candice:

And, sometimes words look don‟t - look very difficult so I can‟t understand.

Researcher: Well, now do you think this has helped you develop your autonomy? If „yes‟, in what way? Page 100 of 104

James:

Ok, I think this is good for learn by myself ..ah!..because this linking word..ah! this two sentences and one linking word showed how to use those words which-which you teach us and-and I can understand easily by myself the linking words.

Junny:

Um!..I think this is useful for self study because we can repeat to study the sentence. If we study at!..in.. the class, may be other students ..may not understand the meaning about the sentence and may be not sure. So, that‟s why it‟s good for self study.

Candice:

Ah...I agree with Andy and-and.... this-this approach of study , ah!.. is good for (h) out study and it can tell us which part of our study is make mistake and correct us [correct yourself] Yes, my grammar. [good for self correct].

Andy:

Yes, I think..it‟s a better (( )) You know we can download or just see online* and repeat* again and again. So which correct us improve our memory.

Research:

Ok, what do you think were the difficulties that you faced while dealing with the concordance data if any?

James:

I think, difficult grammar and difficult words. Sometimes just can‟t figure out what‟s talking about. Ah!...also some very-very ..ah!..detail..ah!..sentence data from the internet that is really confusing me [so, it‟s confusing you, the difficult words] and...difficult grammar [exactly]

Junny:

My problem is same as James. May be some difficult word..it confuse me to understand what words mean and about grammar.

Andy:

Yes, I agree with them because may be some* (( ))words we don‟t use usually so we can‟t understand and sometimes useless.

Page 101 of 104

Candice:

I agree with him (h) [what do you agree with] Some academic vocabulary. I can‟t understand and I‟m poor about grammar (h). So it confuses some meaning.

Researcher: Well, do you think you needed opportunity to practice and produce the

patterns that you discovered through the concordance data? James:

Yeah. I think, ..Ah! I needed ..Ah!..practice again and again because ..Ah!.those rows* in sentences ...sometimes just couldn‟t understand. And, even I ask teachers ...I still misunderstanding some points. So, I have to practice again and again and make it ...just like memories.

Junny:

I think we need more practice about this because sometimes we learn that we know the rules how to use this word but after that may be arrive home it always confuses (( ))...so I think we need more practice.

Andy:

Yes, Um!..I think (( )) practice helps use in writing essays. (( ))

Candice:

We should practice more and notice them and use them into our essays. Ah!..because more we input more we output.

Research:

True, well..so.. What did you like and/or dislike about this approach of teaching, if any?

James:

This approach of teaching is boring. All the words we have studied..Ah!.. have same forms and sometimes those words make me sleeping [so it‟s boring] Yeah, it‟s boring.

Researcher: Why do you think it‟s boring? James:

Because only one form. (( )) what type of word you confuse you don‟t understand. You are checking-you are checking in the internet and all the sentences have the same forms with sentence linking word and a sentence...only one form. [Yeah, this is only about discourse markers..only single discourse markers.. But, you can learn other thinks as well. And, if you learn different things, they have different patterns]

Page 102 of 104

May be I ..Ah!..should learn it Ah!..before..after I remember so many words. Researcher: What do you think Junny? Junny:

I like this way to learning something because I can follow my level and to research same questions about myself. I can save-save some time to learn what we need.

Andy:

I think this is a good approach but ..Ah! maybe..Ah!..the tutor can mention some connect-connect with this content. You know it may be fun (( )).

Candice:

Ah!..I don‟t really like this way because I like to learn in a real environment, such as com-communication conversation and in this way, it makes some imp-impression to remember the words.

Researcher: Well, thank you. Do you think you need any support from teachers

while dealing with the concordance data? Junny:

Yes, I think sometimes we need teachers to-to tell use to-to describe the difficult words to ...(( ))

James:

If we learn those words..Ah!..may be sometimes we Ah!.. found some rules but we don‟t.... know it these rules we understand is right or wrong. So we should ask teachers to correct them for us.

Andy:

Yes, as James mentions..Ah!..I support his idea and because these words..Ah!..there are lots we don‟t understand. We need teachers to ask .... how to use them (( )).

Candice:

Of course, we need some help because we don‟t know so-some essays we write whether it‟s correct. If a teacher can fix our essays, we can learn it.

Page 103 of 104

Transcription Convention 1. -

= repetition

2.

= mispronounced/non-specific words

*

3. (( ))

= unclear or unintelligible speech

4. – (+)

= partial word

5.

= long pause

6. .....

=short pause

7. (h)

= laughter

8. [ ]

= researcher‟s comment

9. Bold =stress

Page 104 of 104